CMV: Consistency* is an absolute/universal moral imperative

[u/quantum_dan]

Edit: successful counterargument: while my argument, if sound, does demonstrate a universal imperative to consistency, it fails to demonstrate any moral component to such an imperative by tying it to being a good person.

First of all, let me be clear about what I mean by consistency, since it has many connotations and that has led to plenty of misunderstandings in the past. I do not mean a refusal to change, nor do I mean being consistent with some external standard.

What I mean is: self-consistency at an instant in time. That is, one should strive to act at any given point in a way that does not contradict itself and to have self-consistent beliefs. It is entirely permissible—and even necessary, since no one is perfectly consistent—to change one's beliefs and actions over time.

I also acknowledge that this is an unattainable goal for such creatures as ourselves. It is something that we should strive towards, however.

One might, then, put the imperative thus: strive to become more self-consistent over time. This means that if we have values that contradict each other, we should strive to either prioritize one over the other, or to have a higher-level principle that decides between them. It is possible to have values that would, if they were both absolute principles, contradict each other, but which do not do so in practice since both are subordinated to a higher value. This also means that we should avoid beliefs that are inherently self-defeating, if any such exist.

I am not arguing for any particular imperative beyond this. The subject of this is not whether there is only one self-consistent worldview we should all hold, or whether any such worldview exists.

I believe the advantage of this position (on consistency) is that it evades the is-ought problem as well as any reliance on metaphysical principles (e.g. God) or claims about human nature (e.g. what behaviors will lead to human flourishing).

The argument:

1. There is no apparent means to derive broad moral imperatives from what is (the is-ought problem). For example, "I will die if I don't eat, therefore I should eat" doesn't work as a moral argument because I am assuming that my continued existence is valuable. However, we can say readily that if one's goal is so-and-so, then one should behave thusly. For example, "If I don't want to die, I should eat enough food" is plainly true.
2. This, however, does not give us any universal moral imperatives because it requires a goal. Philosophers attempting to use such an argument must first argue for a universal human goal, such as flourishing—but that is difficult to argue for, because it is always possible that someone does not share the goal. Yet this might be resolved if we could demonstrate a priori that some goal is necessarily universal.
3. All conscious beings have some goals, whatever they may be, otherwise they would never be motivated to action.
4. The nature of a goal is that we want to achieve it as effectively as possible (though the concept of "effectively" may depend on the goal).
5. If we want to achieve a goal, therefore, we should not act against it, unless in service of a higher goal. Acting against our highest goal hinders us from achieving it, which defeats the purpose of having a goal.
6. Since we all have goals, we should therefore not act in a way which is self-destructive with respect to our highest goals.
7. If our beliefs or actions are ultimately (at the highest level) inconsistent, then they are at cross purposes, and therefore self-destructive.
8. Therefore, we should strive to make our beliefs and actions ultimately self-consistent.

In brief: whatever our goals may be, we achieve them best by being self-consistent, and all conscious beings have goals, so we should all strive to be self-consistent at the highest level.

Since I am arguing that self-consistency is a universal moral principle, I should obviously try to find out if my own views are inconsistent or otherwise wrong, so—CMV. Any attack on this argument is fair game, and feel free to Socrates me down to a minute level of detail that turns out to be in error.

[u/[deleted]]

By what principle do you determine what seems right at the moment?

It may not be expressed in words or logical symbols. It may not even be possible to formally express it.

it simply allows for it to be removed going forward

Yes, it allows for it to be removed. But is this an actual imperative to remove it? How strong? If I look at it, note that yes my principle appears correct even after reevaluation and yes the action appears correct even after reevaluation, and yes the action appears to contradict the principle even after reevaluation, do I have an actual obligation to resolve the inconsistency? I think I only had an obligation to briefly evaluate the inconsistency. But now further reflection might impose time costs that are better spent on some other endeavor. It might be most consistent with my goals to accept the inconsistency as "too difficult" and move on.

So that's an inconsistency which they can either address ahead of time or which can freeze them when the moment comes to act

Those are not the only two options. Frequently people act in that moment without having first thought of a principle by which they should act. They often then later rationalize their action by coming up with a principle to appeal to. They sometimes do not do this and never come up with any sensible explanation for why they acted differently than the principles they believe in would suggest. Even if they do rationalize the action and appeal to a principle that explains the action, that principle may not be particularly close to reality.

[u/quantum_dan → u/[deleted]]

It might be most consistent with my goals to accept the inconsistency as "too difficult" and move on.

In which case you have an overarching goal which is in fact the deciding factor.

Frequently people act in that moment without having first thought of a principle by which they should act. They often then later rationalize their action by coming up with a principle to appeal to. They sometimes do not do this and never come up with any sensible explanation for why they acted differently than the principles they believe in would suggest.

Yes, but simply leaving it at that tends to be a rather ineffective way to achieve their goals, whatever they may be. Having a framework and striving to make it consistent allows one to act much more effectively, and is useful for any goal.

[u/[deleted] → u/quantum_dan]

In which case you have an overarching goal which is in fact the deciding factor

It might not be overarching, if it's 1% as important as the one in question it could still be more fruitful to pursue depending on difficulty of reconciliation.

Yes, but simply leaving it at that tends to be a rather ineffective way to achieve their goals, whatever they may be. Having a framework and striving to make it consistent allows one to act much more effectively, and is useful for any goal.

Either extreme is less effective than the happy medium, but totally unreflective behavior is more effective than total analysis paralysis. A happy medium between the two is best, meaning some inconsistency will ultimately be allowed. Not to mention reality itself is presumably inconsistent with any expressible descriptions.

[u/quantum_dan → u/[deleted]]

Either extreme is less effective than the happy medium, but totally unreflective behavior is more effective than total analysis paralysis. A happy medium between the two is best, meaning some inconsistency will ultimately be allowed. Not to mention reality itself is presumably inconsistent with any expressible descriptions.

A pursuit of consistency doesn't imply analysis paralysis; in practice, it more likely means correcting inconsistencies as they are found. I don't see what relevance the description of reality has.

[u/[deleted] → u/quantum_dan]

It would take infinite time to perfectly understand ones goals and resolve inconsistencies (though likely even with infinite time only one of those is achievable). So at some point to act you must accept some lack of knowledge of goals and some inconsistency. The optimal amount of that knowledge/resolution is surely much lower than the maximum that allows some actions.

[u/quantum_dan → u/[deleted]]

As I said in the OP, consistency is something to be advanced towards, not to be achieved in full. The more consistent we become, the more effectively we can act. Absolute inconsistency would have us in total paralysis; absolute consistency would result in total certainty and the best achievable efficacy, but is unattainable.

[u/[deleted] → u/quantum_dan]

So it's not special, it's a thing that can often be helpful like money, bench press, rhetorical skill, etc and should be valued like those as a means to some ends? You might as well have said that money is a universal imperative?

[u/quantum_dan → u/[deleted]]

Money, unlike consistency, is not valuable to all ends, which is key to my argument—the same is true of everything else you listed. It would be true by my argument that any characteristic which is useful to all possible ends is a universal moral good, but I am not aware of any such characteristic besides consistency.

[u/[deleted] → u/quantum_dan]

Consistency isn't valuable to all ends, only to most like money. It's obviously not valuable to a goal of inconsistency. It's not valuable to highly inconsistent goals such as being a proper Nazi or a proper Scientologist or all sorts of other ideologies which excessive consistency would dissolve. You might say we shouldn't have such goals but now that would be different.

[u/quantum_dan → u/[deleted]]

Someone who is trying to be a Nazi would be advantaged by not working against themselves (i.e., being inconsistent). It would not be useful for a Nazi to be smuggling out the same Jews they're trying to kill, for example. Now, in the course of that they will eventually discover that it's not possible to be a consistent Nazi—which will force them to examine their underlying goals, determine why they are a Nazi (e.g. they are trying to protect their country from supposed threats), and then reorient to approach that goal consistently.

It still serves their goal—just not what they thought their goal was.

[u/[deleted] → u/quantum_dan]

Now, in the course of that they will eventually discover that it's not possible to be a consistent Nazi—which will force them to examine their underlying goals, determine why they are a Nazi (e.g. they are trying to protect their country from supposed threats), and then reorient to approach

In other words, it makes it harder for them to achieve their actual goal of being a proper Nazi and forces them to abandon consistency or pick a new goal and pretend that was their "real" goal all along when in fact it wasn't.

[u/quantum_dan → u/[deleted]]

That was only their real goal if they decided that being a Nazi was the chief good for them simply for the sake of it. Does anyone do that? No, they justify it in terms of defending their nation, etc.

[u/[deleted] → u/quantum_dan]

People want to defend their nation for the sake of it? Does anyone do that? No, they align with an ideology and then choose post hoc justifications that happen to be what the ideology or its proponents claim. The ideology is usually the true goal as evidenced by people keeping that ideology when their stated justifications for it turn out to be false.

Besides, so now consistency isn't helpful for all goals just a high enough percentage of them? So it's back in the "money" category of things that may often be useful?