How do we solve moral problems?

I'm not sure that the "midwit" text here is quite right; it is supposed, I think, to be something like "we derive our morals from first principles" or somesuch. And the idea is that while dimwits just use common sense, the cognoscenti recognise that there is nothing better than just using common sense. The picture was posted, we must presume favourably, by Bryan Caplan; and criticised by Scott Alexander.

For most common everyday issues we do of course use "common sense" for our moral judgements. It could hardly be otherwise; we don't have time to think everything through from first principles. Nor is there any reason to: most ordinary everyday problems are commonplace with well-known solutions; this is after all what we call everyday morality. And even when we do immoral things, no great depths of analysis is required. As good ol' Kant put it:

There is no one, not even the most hardened scoundrel - provided only he is accustomed to use reason in other ways - who, when presented with examples of honesty in purpose, of faithfulness to good maxims, of sympathy, and of kindness towards all (even when these are bound up with great sacrifices of advantage and comfort), does not wish that he too might be a man of like spirit. He is unable to realise such an aim in his own person - though only on account of his desires and impulses; but yet at the same time he wishes to be free from these inclinations, which are a burden to himself.

But the more interesting question is how morality is to be applied to less common situations where we do not have a wealth of examples to guide us. Here it helps to know what morality is, for which you should read Hazlitt, not Kant or his ilk.

From this we learn that, since morality is to promote social cooperation for the long-term good, we should expect us not to have good answers to artificial issues, like the Trolley Problem¹. And since morality is under-determined by any irreducible basis, we should expect people to disagree over edge issues, like the social acceptability of abortion. But I think the most common confusion is to believe that morality covers all issues, up to and including international relations, wars and related matters. You know where I'm going with this, so I can almost stop here. But I'll add: if there's a war, it is best² that it should end quickly. Thus if one side is clearly losing, it should surrender.

Refs

* The parable of the Antheap and the Anteater / Reporting of yer conflict / By the sword you did your work and by the sword you die / Polling Pales.

* Book Review: The Righteous Mind.

* The Prevalence of Marxism in Academia.

Notes

1. If we encountered this in the real world, our likely response would be to jump onto the trolley and try to stop it; or throw a rock onto the tracks or cut the power; or to try to untie the people; or attack the maniac who has set up the problem.

2. "Best in what sense?" you might well ask. Being a comfortable Western atheist, I would answer "best for life, health, prosperity and opportunities for human flourishing". But if those aren't your top priorities - if your top priority is <something else> you might well consider an unwinnable war "worth" continuing. But if you do, you shouldn't then go around wailing that you lack LHPaOfHF.