Morals

[Dak]

To pull this out of the news thread :

What are morals? Are they relative or concrete? Can it be a moral if it isn't concrete? Is moral just a word for guidelines for peaceful human existence?

Etc.

 

[cookiecutter]

I look forward to Cythraul's take on this subject.

I see morals as completely relative. It feels better to think that they are concrete, but I just can't see how that is possible. What is a moral? Is it like a number? I think the fact that morality has changed so drastically throughout history is evidence of their non-concrete nature. Some people argue that some morals, such as murder to use the obvious example, are concrete where others are not. I don't think this distinction can be drawn. There are times when murder is tolerable to us, and in the past there are examples of murder being tolerable that today seem horrific.

Now, if morals are relative, why follow them? I answer this by the fact that many things we find moral can be justified as assisting in living within a society. This really doesn't explain it all, especially considering that over half of the United States believes it is moral to treat gays as second class citizens, and less than fifty years ago (and still to some degree today) this was extended to all non-whites. In that instance all I can say is that relative or not, morals feel strong to those who have them. One can only hope that these morals continue to move towards greater tolerance and respect as time goes on.

 

[skeptik]

Morals are a man made concept. They are subject to the will of its creator. That does not mean that morals don't exist. Morals exist, but only in a relative sense. What I think is moral and immoral is by no means definitive no matter how rationally based it is. For some, morals may not even be an issue of rationality. The fact that what has been deemed moral and immoral has been fluid and in flux for the duration of its existence would lead one to believe that they may not be objective. My own personal account of morals is generally based entirely on pragmatism and equity.

 

[Zephyrus]

Moral relativism only works if everyone is a moral relativist, in which case there need not be morals. Morals, like any idea, do not exist in any dimension except the delusion of the mind. They only appear to exist, relative to different cultures, because they come in conflict. Thus, the only solution is a universal moral code, which although arbitrary, is necessary to end conflict. Of course this will never happen because different religions and political persuasions hold to contrasting moral standards.

In short, we're fucked by diversity, yet the prospect of unity (and thus peace) demands too much.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Wikipedia has a few definitions of morality, of which I like the following best:

an ideal code of conduct

In those terms, a certain code of conduct may be ideal for one group of people but not for another. Or there could be a narrower code of conduct which is universal to all people (what I assume Dakryn is referring to when he says "concrete").

I think there are certain types of behavior, or avoidance of behavior, which may be universally ideal for society. Avoiding senseless killing and torture would be an example of that. For other things like offensive speech, smoking in public, and exposing children to dangerous behavior, it's not as clear whether a universal stance could be taken on such things.

 

[divine_torture]

It's hard to argue anything opposing morals being a relative, man made concept. Just look through history. At one point, stoning a man to death was the norm...and simply because of his religious beliefs. I can comfortably worship Satan today without being stoned.

But morals do not vary just over time, but from person to person. I feel it is immoral to not take care of your child. Yet there are still plenty of parents who abandon their children. They don't feel it is wrong, and have arguments to justify their actions.

 

[Dak]

I am seeing a lot of arguments for relative morals with the justification being :"Look at how social acceptance has changed".

A moral to me is a definite line drawn that regardless of public opinion [blank] is right or wrong. Where to draw these lines though is obviously going to be a point of extreme disagreement due to religious or cultural views.

The problem is also the definition of the very acts themselves. Example: People, depending on culture and views have a different definition of murder than others. Then you get the people like nobility in the middle ages that exercised the "right of prima nocta" or whatever, and didn't consider it rape or adultery (although obviously the husband/wife would have disagreed).

My personal opinion of the ideal moral lines would be the entire Torah, but I realize that will never be realized unless YHWH came to earth so I won't even bother arguing for it.

Bottom line: I don't know to many people who would disagree that murder/adultery/stealing are wrong, but what may disagreed on is what constitutes murder/adultery/theft.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I see morals as completely relative. It feels better to think that they are concrete, but I just can't see how that is possible. What is a moral? Is it like a number? I think the fact that morality has changed so drastically throughout history is evidence of their non-concrete nature. Some people argue that some morals, such as murder to use the obvious example, are concrete where others are not. I don't think this distinction can be drawn. There are times when murder is tolerable to us, and in the past there are examples of murder being tolerable that today seem horrific.

By this logic, it would seem that our laws of science are also completely relative, so I'm not sure you want to be making this claim. The laws of science presumably do not change over time, but rather our understanding of those laws changes (typically to more closely represent the actual laws). I'm willing to consider that our understanding of what is acceptable human conduct also grows in this way.

 

[skeptik]

The only answer you can get to such a question is a personal interpretation of moral conduct. There is no answer as to whether we should "tolerate murder," which in itself is a pretty ambiguous term with lots of leeway.

 

[Zephyrus]

For most people, the prospect of tolerating murder threatens their individual sense of security in an environment, thus for most adaptively functioning humans, murder is regarded as wrong.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Morals are, as Matt said, not concrete. I believe there is also an innate difference between morals and codes of law. Laws are enacted to keep society functioning and to reduce the amount of entropy in a society (for obvious reasons). Murder causes various undesirable things to society (you lose someone who can work, people grieve which can cause them to be unproductive in the society, etc.), and so it's against the law.

As Nick/CC said, there have been times when murder has been looked upon as glorious (for instance, when killing via death penalty, which is definitely murder) so I don't think we can really say that murder = totally wrong. Of course, random murder of citizens is worse on the spectrum than killing someone who actually did something wrong, but I don't think that changes the core of the subject, namely that murder is not "morally" wrong.

 

[skeptik]

By this logic, the laws of science are also completely relative, so I don't think you want to be making this claim. Our understanding of science has grown continually throughout history, and I'm willing to consider that our understanding of what is acceptable human conduct has also grown.

The laws of science are arbitrary and relative to its constituency. They are not "the laws of science" because of its own force of authority, they're the laws simply because those are the general characteristic traits that we have been able to identify that have been produced by the select circumstances we see in our (or some other) universe.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

By this logic, the laws of science are also completely relative, so I don't think you want to be making this claim. The laws of science presumably do not change, but rather our understanding of those laws changes (typically to more closely represent the actual laws). I'm willing to consider that our understanding of what is acceptable human conduct also grows in this way.

I have major problems with this. Science and morality are very different subjects. Morality is not based on observation and data-collection, while science is. Science is true wholly because we rely on its findings being correct so that we can function on a daily basis. Morality is subject to no such scrutiny.

 

[Zephyrus]

If science and ethics were the same, none of us would have a problem with the Zimbardo experiment, or anything else subjecting humans to "objectivity".

 

[Omni]

Morals are an invention of mankind, and they differ between social groups or individual people due to differences in values and beliefs. There's no objective measure of what is wrong or right, since everyone has different morals. Even if everyone in the world agreed on the same morals, it would just be humans sharing an opinion as there is no accurate way to determine the validity of one's moral views. Morals are just the personal beliefs and opinions of humans, whether as a group or as individuals.

Scientific facts can not be compared to morals, as they are not based on opinions, but things that we have been able to know and determine as facts through research. Scientific facts don't vary from person to person. Even if someone chooses to discount a fact, it is still factually correct and accurate. We don't know everything about everything, or even close, but what we do know is based in fact rather than opinion.

 

[Dak]

I have major problems with this. Science and morality are very different subjects. Morality is not based on observation and data-collection, while science is. Science is true wholly because we rely on its findings being correct so that we can function on a daily basis. Morality is subject to no such scrutiny.

Actually that is not true. You can study history and look at the success of nations at stages, and usually will find that the more "loose" a nation is, the more quickly it destructs from within. On the flip side, the "higher" the standards are, the more prosperous it is.

Rome, America, and Britain, and Babylon (Persia) are excellent examples from Western civ.

Morals are an invention of mankind, and they differ between social groups or individual people due to differences in values and beliefs. There's no objective measure of what is wrong or right, since everyone has different morals. Even if everyone in the world agreed on the same morals, it would just be humans sharing an opinion as there is no accurate way to determine the validity of one's moral views. Morals are just the personal beliefs and opinions of humans, whether as a group or as individuals.

Scientific facts can not be compared to morals, as they are not based on opinions, but things that we have been able to know and determine as facts through research. Scientific facts don't vary from person to person. Even if someone chooses to discount a fact, it is still factually correct and accurate. We don't know everything about everything, or even close, but what we do know is based in fact rather than opinion.

But what is considered scientific fact can change. Did the fact change? No. But whether we were right about it or not changes. The same would go for morals. I believe there is definitely a right and wrong way to live, and the success of a civilization in following closely to the right rules (which are based on morals) = it's overall success.

 

[skeptik]

So you can look at the results of civilizations and determine what morals are objective?

 

[Dak]

No, you can see what works and what doesn't.

 

[skeptik]

And what does that have to do with objective, or "concrete," morality?

 

[Zephyrus]

Actually that is not true. You can study history and look at the success of nations at stages, and usually will find that the more "loose" a nation is, the more quickly it destructs from within. On the flip side, the "higher" the standards are, the more prosperous it is.

Excuse me. Rome fell because of the imposition of unreasonably high moral standards in the form of Christianity. An empire forged by a bestial nature must maintain that nature to ward off external pressures. Christianity diminished the will to individualism (such as the great conquerors like Caesar and Trajan) and instilled a slave morality in its people, leaving them weak and vulnerable to barbarian invasions. They handed the reins from strong leaders to weak bishops.

The Roman Empire would have lasted much longer if it maintained "looser" moral standards, celebrating military and sexual spirit, rather than the opposite which Christianity champions.