are the moraly right the victors of war?

[devil-fire]

it seems to me that the ones who win the wars turn out to be the moraly right

i remember talking about archers in history class in that they were vary effective in battle but they were a 'lesser' way to win the battle beause they required little skill to best a knight. sure enough, we dont care who has the skill and we dont care much about honor in war as long as it dosent violate any human rights conventions

there is a saying about world war 2, "if they won the war, we would all be speaking german". i think this also extends to (or maybe just refers to) the mentality that nazis would have been in the right if they won.

it makes sense that any system of morals that can beat out the last guys will be considered the right way to do things after a generation or 2



what do u guys think?

[russ_watters]

there is a saying about world war 2, "if they won the war, we would all be speaking german". i think this also extends to (or maybe just refers to) the mentality that nazis would have been in the right if they won.

it makes sense that any system of morals that can beat out the last guys will be considered the right way to do things after a generation or 2

what do u guys think? I don't think that old adage was meant to imply that the Germans would automatically be morally right. There is another adage that the winners write the history books. In that sense, someone can manipulate (or lie) about the history to make it seem like their side was morally right, but that doesn't make it morally right.

In fact, if one has to lie to make their side appear "better," thats pretty clear evidence that they aren't.

[dschouten]

I would tend to agree with russ_waters and would even venture so far as to say that the victors of war tend, more often than not, to be in the morally 'right' position (and win the war because of it). "Evil may win battles, but good wins wars."

I argue in favor of this position by considering Von Clausewitz' arguments about the relation between total war and the strength of the combatants' will. More often than not, the defendant bears its very existence into war, and thereby is more strongly willed than the agressor. The defendant emerges the victor eventually through guerilla tactics and/or dogged persistence that outdoes any of military/political/monetary advantages the agressor may have gained by pursuing its objectives with the same tenacity.

Case-in-point: the American resolve has been considerable weakened by the death of some few hundred soldiers in Iraq. Yet by comparison, in WWII the Americans lost hundreds of thousands of young men and women whilst their resolve to continue the fight was only strengthened. I am not making a judgement on the Iraq 'phoney-war' (thats a whole other can of worms - and besides, it can hardly be called a war, it is more like a skirmish or brief foray), but I will say that if the situation was reversed, the will of the American people to suffer and even die for their nation's continued existence would be much stronger.

[odersven]

morality has nothing to do with determining right or wrong in war.

case in point: if there is no one to say you are wrong because you killed them, you could be considered morally right by lack of opposition.

war doesn't decide who is right or wrong, just who is left.

[odersven]

russ_watters,

you have to remember that morality is subjective - even down to the individual - and is not the generalization common among Western Ego born in the European medevial age.

In Hitler's mind, he thought his actions were moral. And in his mind, he was right.

It is subjective.

[dschouten]

russ_watters,

you have to remember that morality is subjective - even down to the individual - and is not the generalization common among Western Ego born in the European medevial age.

In Hitler's mind, he thought his actions were moral. And in his mind, he was right.

It is subjective.
Don't be so stupid. If Hitler really thought he was 'morally right', then why did he go through such lengths to hide the Holocaust? Was it just for a bit of German fun?

Your sorry mixture of historical revisionism and moral relativism is complete hogwash.

[dschouten]

case in point: if there is no one to say you are wrong because you killed them, you could be considered morally right by lack of opposition.
By the same token, when a tree falls in the forest and noone is around to see it, it doesn't make a sound. Ergo, physics is just a bunch of "Western Ego born in the European medevial age" so we don't have to accept it or the laws it imposes. What a tidy affair.

If I kill you, and nobody catches me, am I 'morally right'? That would be convenient.

[loseyourname]

To be fair, the tree falling thing depends entirely on how you define sound. If the waves themselves constitute sound, then the tree makes a sound. But if sound is the perception of the waves by an intelligent being, then it doesn't make a sound. I guess that's off-topic, though.

A better analogy would be to just use some obvious truth. If I insist that my hand is made of plastic, and even if I honestly believe my hand to be made of plastic, I'm wrong whether or not anyone argues with me.

[odersven]

dschouten, welcome to slave morality!

Morality is SUBJECTIVE.

Hitler did think he was right, he hid the holocaust because others thought it was immoral. SUBJECTIVE. Do I think he was right? No, but guess what? You cant kill 6 million Jews by yourself.

You obviously have no clue as to what moral concepts are. They are not perminant, and change constantly. There is no such thing as a universal morality because it is a generalization of life as a whole.

You created your morality, and now it limits you - enjoy your self served slavery.

[loseyourname]

You don't think Hitler was right to kill Jews? Does that not mean you would not kill a Jew simply because he was a Jew? Well jeez, welcome to slavery. That's one less possibility for your life.

[Kerrie]

dschouten, welcome to slave morality!

Morality is SUBJECTIVE.

Hitler did think he was right, he hid the holocaust because others thought it was immoral. SUBJECTIVE. Do I think he was right? No, but guess what? You cant kill 6 million Jews by yourself.

You obviously have no clue as to what moral concepts are. They are not perminant, and change constantly. There is no such thing as a universal morality because it is a generalization of life as a whole.

You created your morality, and now it limits you - enjoy your self served slavery.

you make a good point, but let's tone down the self-righteousness here :biggrin:
new ideas/thoughts are better accepted when coated in honey.

i absolutely see your point-hitler did believe he was "right", thus "moral" in his own perspective. as the question of this topic is posed, "are the morally right the victors of war?", we would have to answer a big fat NO because Hitler did not win WWII, despite how many innocent people lost their lives.

[devil-fire]

for the points in this topic lets say that the moraly right or wrong is desided by the most people in the world. and also lets assume that if a person dosn't care, that they do not disagree with it.

so durring ww2 for example, most germans did not know the full extent of the genocide but many suspected and did not find it objectionable. if the nazis won the war do you think that those people would look back in retrospect and change their minds about right and wrong? would a world under nazi rule think it right or wrong?

note that history isn't the main subject of this topic (i for one generaly have a lack of knowledge in history). its just a good example i think i can refer to and know that everyone is basicly on the same page

[devil-fire]

you make a good point, but let's tone down the self-righteousness here :biggrin:
new ideas/thoughts are better accepted when coated in honey.

i absolutely see your point-hitler did believe he was "right", thus "moral" in his own perspective. as the question of this topic is posed, "are the morally right the victors of war?", we would have to answer a big fat NO because Hitler did not win WWII, despite how many innocent people lost their lives.


sorry, i missnamed my topic. what i ment to ask is if the victors of war are the moraly right.

i think we can all agree on that point though

[devil-fire]

when i say moraly right im refering to the shared opinion of the most amount of people

[BoulderHead]

Yeah, I saw you had answered my question right after I posted, so I deleted the question.

In that case I would say in the long run the majority view is likely to prevail.

[edit]
To which I'd add that winning the minds of others is part of the struggle, a struggle that philosophy plays a role in.

[Evo]

when i say moraly right im refering to the shared opinion of the most amount of peopleIf we take WWII as an example, Hitler was able to quickly conquer a large number of people, but these people did not agree with their captors and most continued to oppose him until ultimately Hitler was overthrown. Also, many countries not yet conquered by Hitler opposed him. So, even though he was the victor, the shared opinion of the majority (according to your definition) would make the victor Germany/Hitler morally wrong.

If Hitler would have stopped before invading Russia, Germany would have held most of Europe and parts of N Africa.

[russ_watters]

Morality is SUBJECTIVE. You're talking about moral relativism. Its discussed in several other threads and it is, quite simply, wrong. What someone believes to be moral and immoral is largely irrelevant to the question of whether certain actions actually are or are not immoral. Morality is as absolute as the laws of physics, though just as difficult to figure out. But to put it simply, what is morally right is what works. Murder, for example, cannot be morally right because if it were and everyone were to do it, it would cause society to break down. That idea of morality doesn't work and is therefore flawed.

If taken to its logical conclusion, moral relativism means anarchy: no one is able to impose any morality on anyone else and therefore no one can enforce any laws against anyone else. i absolutely see your point-hitler did believe he was "right", thus "moral" in his own perspective. I'm sure there is much debate on that point in psychology circles where they discuss the depth of his mental illness. The veracity of his beliefs is not really all that relevant to this discussion for that reason.

[Integral]

....
Morality is as absolute as the laws of physics, though just as difficult to figure out.

Wow! Russ were did you get this wild idea! Morality is cultural, each culture has its own morality, there have been many cultures in the history of man most of which you would have been horrified at what was considered moral. But to put it simply, what is morally right is what works. Murder, for example, cannot be morally right because if it were and everyone were to do it, it would cause society to break down. That idea of morality doesn't work and is therefore flawed. Frankly, our view of murder is pretty recent. As little as 150 yrs ago in this country a Southern Gentleman could terminate the life of one of his slaves and it would not have been considered murder, no one would have raised an eyebrow or even thought to suggest that murder had been committed. Morality is more defined by the subconscious of the culture then "what works".
If taken to its logical conclusion, moral relativism means anarchy: no one is able to impose any morality on anyone else and therefore no one can enforce any laws against anyone else. I'm sure there is much debate on that point in psychology circles where they discuss the depth of his mental illness. The veracity of his beliefs is not really all that relevant to this discussion for that reason.
There is a significant difference between morality and the legal system, we can impose laws but morality is an entirely separate issue. It is the rare human who will declare THEMSELVES immoral. Irregardless of despicable deeds each human has the ability to rationalize actions so as to believe themself to be moral. That is how ephemeral morality is. As for morality being absolute that is simply ludicrous.

[BoulderHead]

Murder, for example, cannot be morally right because if it were and everyone were to do it, it would cause society to break down. That idea of morality doesn't work and is therefore flawed.
What is wrong is the Genetic Fallacy…
There may be societal, even evolutionary, reasons explaining why people may view murder as wrong, but being able to explain the how and why for holding a view does not demonstrate the untrue-ness of an opposing view.
Although this may seem a bit odd; I am unconvinced there is necessarily a reason to assume everyone would commit murder even if murder were in fact morally ok, therefore, claiming ‘that idea of morality doesn’t work…’ seems dubious.

[russ_watters]

Wow! Russ were did you get this wild idea! Morality is cultural, each culture has its own morality, there have been many cultures in the history of man most of which you would have been horrified at what was considered moral. And there is a reason why they are no longer around today. Like I said, just because something is "considered" (believed) by some to be moral does not make it moral any more than geistkiel's insistence that light obeys Galilean relativity makes it so.

Morality, just like scientific knowledge is converging into its fundamental laws the more we study it. Frankly, our view of murder is pretty recent. As little as 150 yrs ago in this country a Southern Gentleman could terminate the life of one of his slaves and it would not have been considered murder, no one would have raised an eyebrow or even thought to suggest that murder had been committed. More evidence that our understanding of morality is evolving/coalescing into its universal laws. There is a significant difference between morality and the legal system, we can impose laws but morality is an entirely separate issue. Murder isn't a moral issue? As for morality being absolute that is simply ludicrous. Quite frankly, its only ludicrous because you haven't thought moral relativism through to its logical ends. I'm not saying that to be condescending, its just that very few people ever do. Most people take the morality given to them by their parents and accept it (or don't) with little thought. Religion helps - it says in the Ten Commandments that murder is wrong. So it is.... right? Or isn't it? No one ever stops to ask why?

I had a series of seminars on this in college and a good 3/4 of the people started with your opinion. After several weeks of case studies and examples on why moral relativism leads inevitably and invariably to anarchy, virtually everyone eventually concluded that moral relativism is a flawed basis for defining morality. Boiling it down though, think about this:

On what basis can you impose your version of morality on someone else if everyone's own personal view is equally valid?

[russ_watters]

I am unconvinced there is necessarily a reason to assume everyone would commit murder even if murder were in fact morally ok, therefore, claiming ‘that idea of morality doesn’t work…’ seems dubious. I'm not saying everyone would - I'm not even saying that many more would than already do. I'm saying that if you don't have a basis for morality, you don't have a basis for telling people what they can and can't do. If you can't tell people that they can't commit murder, and you don't punish people who do, that will have a pretty big negative impact on society.

[BoulderHead]

I'm not saying everyone would - I'm not even saying that many more would than already do.
Your argument came across differently to me. What I saw was a claim that society would break down.

I'm saying that if you don't have a basis for morality, you don't have a basis for telling people what they can and can't do. If you can't tell people that they can't commit murder, and you don't punish people who do, that will have a pretty big negative impact on society.
You were arguing not in favor of morality but, rather, absolute morality. Here is how I saw your argument;

1) Society cannot exist without absolute morality.
2) Society exists
3) Absolute morality exists

I question the premise and conclusion.

[dschouten]

Allow me to renew this discussion with a few statements with which I think everyone can or should agree:

1. Everyone, with the exception of a very few perhaps, has some concept of morality. Consider: when approached with the question "Is what you are doing morally right?", a vast proportion of people will not balk or question the sanity of the one asking the question, but will more than likely have some quick response to justify themselves and their actions (whether the justification is valid or not will have to be discussed later).

2. Whether or not one defends his/her actions has little to do with the actual morality of the actions. This is why excuses are so prevalent. When faced with the possibility of being caught 'red-handed' doing something that is known to be wrong, even in the sense of a cultural norm, people (that is, we) are very likely to simply lie and willfully promote the morality of something they (we) know, or at least believe, to be immoral.

3. Morality is not synonomous with legality. Many moral things have been - indeed, still may be - illegal. The vice-versa is similarly true.

(This will be the most controversial and emprical statement)
4. Cross-cultural differences in moral codes do not affect the most basic premises of morality, but only the particular applications. For example, killing is never generally accepted but people are still killed. Similarly, cheating is never considered good, although there certainly exist circumstances in many cultures where cheating is promoted. The basic premises have not changed, but value statements have been made to justify their transgression.

Now for some conclusions derived from these premises:

Because of (1), whereby every human has some concept of morality, it follows that morality exists in and of itself. Disagreements about the correctness of one's moral code may certainly exist, yet there are no arguments to dissuade the very existence of morality.

Because of (2), arguments derived from the differences of distinct moral codes may not imply that morality is relative. Also, because of (3), the legality of some action implies nothing about its moral status in that culture. The argument proposed to validate moral relativism in this forum had to do with the murder of slaves some hundred years ago. My counterclaim is that this was legal, yet entirely immoral even in the context of 19th century American culture despite the many attempts to justify it at that time. There exists a vast store of literature from that era which will validate my claim.

Now since morality exists in and of itself, and arguments concerning its application do not imply moral relativism, and since by (4) the concept of morality is essentially constant across cultures, it can be concluded that there is some morality which is common and which exists by itself independant of its application. This is the morality of which I speak when arguing against the moral correctness of a military victor.

This is also the morality which condemns Hitler's murderous intentions. It cries 'despicable' when it sees the horrors of slavery then and now. It has exuded and now exudes its influence in literature from antiquity to the present. Anyone with a tiddle more than a brief exposure to the world, its peoples and its history cannot cling to the hot branding iron of moral relativism. It holds no sway when brought to bear on the realities of life and exists only when separated from its application.

[RRR]

Only WWII and Hitler have been considered and incidentally, it is one of the rare instances where a "bad guy" can clearly be indentified in the history of war. In this case, few people would argue that "the good guys" won or at least that the worse of the two parties lost. But even in WWII, there was a lot of relativism at work such as the massive aerial bombing campaigns of the allies against German and Japanese civilians.

But beyond World War II, look at all of the innocent peoples that have been wiped out by warfare. The volumes of history that have and could yet be written on the colonial wars instigated by european imperialists against aboriginal peoples round the world do not represent very well the notion that the morally right win wars. If anything, history continues to teach us that nice guys don't win wars, that morality has nothing at all to do with it. Discipline, leadership and most importantly, ample resources (including technological resources) determine the victors of warfare. Wars are fought for and with economic and human power. Morality is a marketing ploy used to sell the product of war.

[russ_watters]

Your argument came across differently to me. What I saw was a claim that society would break down. And it would. It doesn't take that many unpunished murderers, thiefs, rapists, etc before vigliante justice (anarchy) sets in. You were arguing not in favor of morality but, rather, absolute morality. That is correct. I do, in fact, believe that no morality has any teeth (ie, can't work) unless it is absolute. A society based on a relative morality would have no choice but to let every individual in the society choose what is morally right and wrong for them and act accordingly. Here is how I saw your argument;

1) Society cannot exist without absolute morality.
2) Society exists.
[therefore] 3) Absolute morality exists. #3 needs to be a premise in the same way that every physicist must assume starting out that there are absolute laws governing the universe before starting an experiment. If the experiment works, then that becomes further evidence that that premise is correct. If no experiment ever works (ie, no reproduceable results, ever), then you can throw out the premise.

#1 becomes Universal Morality's first premise. Just as with Relativity's premises though, this one can be tested simply by observing that there has never been a society based on complete moral relativism. Its as axiomatic as the first postulate of Relativity (it even sounds the same): the moral laws of a society are the same for all members of the society. There have of course been varying degrees - a despot is above the laws of the country. A country with a strict caste system (India) has different morality/laws for different people. But in no country can everyone pick and choose what works for them. The jump then is similar to the jump from Galilean to Einsteinean relativity - not a big step. I question the premise and conclusion. Fine. Why?

[dschouten]

Only WWII and Hitler have been considered and incidentally, it is one of the rare instances where a "bad guy" can clearly be indentified in the history of war. In this case, few people would argue that "the good guys" won or at least that the worse of the two parties lost. But even in WWII, there was a lot of relativism at work such as the massive aerial bombing campaigns of the allies against German and Japanese civilians.
This wasn't moral relativism: that it was done by the 'good' guys never validated them doing it. A morally superior position in war has never validated every action performed during the war. Rather, war is atrocious in its very nature. Upon reading Churchill's series on the war as well as a vast store of other historical documents it becomes clear just how much argument there was against the Dresden fire bombings etc. from the Allied commanders.

Morality is a marketing ploy used to sell the product of war.
Not quite. Hawks certainly appeal to morality to justify war, but morality is not invented to serve war. For instance, noone would ever say: "Such and such a country is all too nice to us. Lets bomb the hell out of them." and thus invent a completely new morality. The appeals always go like "This group of people are bad because of such and such. Because of this lets bomb the hell out of them." The 'bad because of such and such' is the morality and its not invented, but appealed to. Otherwise, why would such a claim carry any weight, unless the majority of people agreed that 'such and such' was bad?

[RRR]

One must view the concept of "morality" for what it is...a human concept invented by humanity. It is not a natural law that we somehow discover. As with any human invention, morality serves a purpose. That purpose has primarily been as a tool to aid in the smooth functioning of an ordered society. Beginning with the enlightenment, the concept of individual liberty was added to the function of morality. Morality's purpose then became to function as a tool in balancing social order with individual liberty. It is this function which serves as an absolute---not a universal absolute, but a functional one. Its like any invention...say an automobile. A car is made essentially for transportation--to get from point A to point B. How one makes an automobile and even how one drives it is relative or even a subjective consideration, but the goal is, for practical purposes, an absolute.

[russ_watters]

But even in WWII, there was a lot of relativism at work such as the massive aerial bombing campaigns of the allies against German and Japanese civilians. And the international community has looked back and realized that that isn't how civilized nations should act. I wouldn't call that relativism though. Its coming to an agreement on a universal moral law (indiscriminate bombing of civilians in war is not acceptable).

The international view of morality was changed after WWII precisely because the existing view was seen as flawed: it led to two world wars. The volumes of history that have and could yet be written on the colonial wars instigated by european imperialists against aboriginal peoples round the world do not represent very well the notion that the morally right win wars. Back to the original question: I agree with you here that strength is what wins wars, not moral superiority.

dschouten - I mostly agree with you. Minor points:

No, morality is not synonomous with legality (and thats why we're having this part of the argument), but it is suposed to be. Ie, no one will pass a law while admitting they know it to be morally wrong.

On #4 I think we agree (it is, admittedly, complicated) and that's part of my basis for arguing against moral relativism. Some people see the fact that different people have differing views on morality and think that that equals relativism. It doesn't any more than the disagreements in the TD forum mean there are no universal physical laws. It bears repeating: just because someone believes something does not make it right.

[russ_watters]

One must view the concept of "morality" for what it is...a human concept invented by humanity. It is not a natural law that we somehow discover. As with any human invention, morality serves a purpose. That purpose has primarily been as a tool to aid in the smooth functioning of an ordered society. Beginning with the enlightenment, the concept of individual liberty was added to the function of morality. Morality's purpose then became to function as a tool in balancing social order with individual liberty. A reasonable position, but....It is this function which serves as an absolute---not a universal absolute, but a functional one. What's the difference between a universal absolute and a functional one? God? 'It just 'Is'?' Since it works just the same either way, I don't see a reason to assume a functional absolute is any different from a universal one. Again, I consider this like the ether vs relativity debate - an unncessary added assumption.

[RRR]

This wasn't moral relativism: that it was done by the 'good' guys never validated them doing it. Upon reading Churchill's series on the war as well as a vast store of other historical documents it becomes clear just how much argument there was against the Dresden fire bombings etc. from the Allied commanders.

It was debated, but even today, it is largely justified. You won't find a lot of WWII buffs claiming that the A-Bombs should not have been dropped. The idea that the killing of thousands of civilians to save even one American soldier often justifies what might normally be considered reprehensible. While some figures, like Curtis Lemay would privately comment that if they lost the war, they would be tried for war crimes, the will to win and preserve their own troops justified nearly any indiscretion.

Not quite. Hawks certainly appeal to morality to justify war, but morality is not invented to serve war. For instance, noone would ever say: "Such and such a country is all too nice to us. Lets bomb the hell out of them." and thus invent a completely new morality. The appeals always go like "This group of people are bad because of such and such. Because of this lets bomb the hell out of them." The 'bad because of such and such' is the morality and its not invented, but appealed to. Otherwise, why would such a claim carry any weight, unless the majority of people agreed that 'such and such' was bad?

Actually, thats what I meant, but you articulated it better.

[dschouten]

It was debated, but even today, it is largely justified. You won't find a lot of WWII buffs claiming that the A-Bombs should not have been dropped. The idea that the killing of thousands of civilians to save even one American soldier often justifies what might normally be considered reprehensible. While some figures, like Curtis Lemay would privately comment that if they lost the war, they would be tried for war crimes, the will to win and preserve their own troops justified nearly any indiscretion.

Aha. But that is just it - 'largely justified'. People appeal to norms of morality to try and justify an action, but they don't invent new ones, which is the main thrust of my arguments thus far.

It can be debatable whether a particular action is moral simply because the basic laws of morality depend on circumstance, and the circumstances are debatable. But if everyone agreed on the circumstances, everyone would agree on the morality of the action.

[RRR]

Is it a universal absolute that a car is used to go from point a to point b? I suppose you could use a car as a planter for an herb garden. Morality is a tool like any other. Society, as its wielder has evolving needs. Those needs are what set the "worth" of a moral law and that changes over time and under varying circumstances. Its not a free-for-all relativism that one might imagine. Its grounded in its efficacy. But its not a carved in stone mythic cord binding all living things to do its bidding. If it was universal, then I would expect animals and even inanimate objects to conform to moral law.

[dschouten]

Is it a universal absolute that a car is used to go from point a to point b? I suppose you could use a car as a planter for an herb garden. Morality is a tool like any other. Society, as its wielder has evolving needs. Those needs are what set the "worth" of a moral law and that changes over time and under varying circumstances. Its not a free-for-all relativism that one might imagine. Its grounded in its efficacy. But its not a carved in stone mythic cord binding all living things to do its bidding. If it was universal, then I would expect animals and even inanimate objects to conform to moral law.
Don't be ridiculous. Morality is concerned only with human actions. You don't put a bear on trial for killing a rabbit. Inanimate objects should also seem an obvious exception to morality's universality.

Regarding society's evolving needs, if you were to peer into the moral codes of yesteryear you would find that morality has remained unchanged, as it would be.

I think though, that we are closer together on this issue then we are letting on here. Perhaps my peevishness is standing the way of acceptable compromise. Alas, but for my egoism!

[RRR]

You guys are too fast for me. I'm goofing off of work and before I can post a reply to the last response, another one is already out there.

It can be debatable whether a particular action is moral simply because the basic laws of morality depend on circumstance, and the circumstances are debatable. But if everyone agreed on the circumstances, everyone would agree on the morality of the action.

I can concede this. But even so, I think a lot of it remains subjective. Morality is determined by a society, or even a community, if you will. Often, even in our more international world, rules for one's community are often not applied to "outsiders". I think it remains difficult for many people, especially in war, to apply the same logic that may justify one's own actions to justifying the action of an enemy. Even if people do agree on the circumstances, its not given that they will agree with the actions taken simply because they may belong to different communities.

[RRR]

Don't be ridiculous. Morality is concerned only with human actions. You don't put a bear on trial for killing a rabbit. Inanimate objects should also seem an obvious exception to morality's universality.

Actually, that reply was to this from russ_watters. I must be more careful.

What's the difference between a universal absolute and a functional one? God? 'It just 'Is'?' Since it works just the same either way, I don't see a reason to assume a functional absolute is any different from a universal one. Again, I consider this like the ether vs relativity debate - an unncessary added assumption.

But yes, morality isn't concerned with animal behavior or inanimate objects. It is only concerned with human action. Which is why I can't see that it is "universal". Thats why I believe that it is a human invention. I was just being flippant.

[dschouten]

But yes, morality isn't concerned with animal behavior or inanimate objects. It is only concerned with human action. Which is why I can't see that it is "universal". Thats why I believe that it is a human invention. I was just being flippant.
No, this can't be the case. The universal law of the weak interaction doesn't apply to all particles, only those that interact weakly, yet the law is still universal.

When I state 'universal law' what I mean to say is that, given a group of things this law applies to, any member of that group, at any point in time, in any place in the universe, is subject to that law. So if there is a law that applies to humans, it is a universal law if it applies to all humans. Morality is one such law.

[BoulderHead]

That is correct. I do, in fact, believe that no morality has any teeth (ie, can't work) unless it is absolute. A society based on a relative morality would have no choice but to let every individual in the society choose what is morally right and wrong for them and act accordingly.
You seem to be considering a society based solely on respect for individual relativism, claiming that such a society would ultimately break down. While I’m inclined to agree with you on that point what I am seeing overlooked here is any consideration for cultural relativism.
Also, I need clarification on what exactly you mean by ‘absolute’. When you make the statement “Morality is as absolute as the laws of physics, though just as difficult to figure out.”, what exactly are you saying?
Is it a claim, for example, that morality has existed in nature, independent of man, in the form of something akin to a law, or is it merely to claim that all men have a moral code of some type? Also, what do you think makes it so difficult to figure out?

When you say “…what is morally right is what works.” I actually tend to agree, though not perhaps for the same reasons you do. I look at it more from the context of individuals wishing to fulfill their needs/wants, recognizing that society is a means to accomplish this, and then formulating ways to behave with respect to others such that their objectives aren’t defeated. I view this process having more to do with engineering than immutable law, although I can see the flip side where societal experimentation may reveal some behavior to work better than others towards fulfilling a specific objective and a sort of codification of ‘law’ (dare I say the word?) takes place, haha. Still, I think it is because I view such things as being done purposefully, with definite ends in mind (ends that may vary from one group to the next), that I may hold a different understanding than you, or not, as much depends on how you define ‘absolute’.

So, when you ask why I question the premise “Society cannot exist without absolute morality.” I would answer that it is in part because the goals of a society may vary and with it, morality.

[devil-fire]

im toying with the idea of the moraly right having to do with moraly stable

what i mean by moraly stable is a system of morals that supports a strong social/economic/military system (things that could be used to maintain the moral code). like in the case of ww2, the nazis would have been over thrown before long by another group who would divote less resources to vengfull or genocidal acts because it would detract from other goals that relate more closly to victory.
this is to say that i consider the differences in the moral code of the nazis to be a weakness

an example of an imoral thing that would damage an economic system would be insider trading. if something is moraly justifyable but damages the system, it weakens it and thus makes it less stable to being overtaken by something else

what im trying to understand is if the winners of wars and conflict have strong and stable moral systems and win because of the better moral code. sort of like 'survival of the fittest' refering to a moral system

[russ_watters]

Don't be ridiculous. Morality is concerned only with human actions. You don't put a bear on trial for killing a rabbit. Inanimate objects should also seem an obvious exception to morality's universality. Dissident_Dan, any comment on this...? It was debated, but even today, it is largely justified. You won't find a lot of WWII buffs claiming that the A-Bombs should not have been dropped. The idea that the killing of thousands of civilians to save even one American soldier often justifies what might normally be considered reprehensible. I've never seen anyone make that argument. The argument was always 'is killing 100,000 civilians worth it to save half a million soldiers on our side alone?'

[dschouten]

im toying with the idea of the moraly right having to do with moraly stable

what i mean by moraly stable is a system of morals that supports a strong social/economic/military system (things that could be used to maintain the moral code). like in the case of ww2, the nazis would have been over thrown before long by another group who would divote less resources to vengfull or genocidal acts because it would detract from other goals that relate more closly to victory.
this is to say that i consider the differences in the moral code of the nazis to be a weakness

an example of an imoral thing that would damage an economic system would be insider trading. if something is moraly justifyable but damages the system, it weakens it and thus makes it less stable to being overtaken by something else

This depends all to heavily on the 'system' employed, so that what you are really saying is that morality is subservient to economic/sociological systems rather than the vice-versa (which is what I would propose). Because of this, the morality of which you speak really isn't 'morality' per se, but rather a codefied means of self-preservation within the context of some pre-existing system. Too wit: insider trading isn't bad, its just inefficient. If this is the case we have reached the pinacle of moral relativism, and I hope that previous posts in this forum can steer the attentive reader clear of such dangerous reasoning.

what im trying to understand is if the winners of wars and conflict have strong and stable moral systems and win because of the better moral code. sort of like 'survival of the fittest' refering to a moral system
I actually discussed this earlier and was quite close to agreeing with you (a priori). It was stated that perhaps the winners of wars are equipped with a stronger will stemming from a morally defensible position. Von Clausewitz has argued (albeit some hundred years ago) that the clash of combatants continues to escalate in force proportional to the combatants' will (with their will being derived from political/military/ethical objectives). A morally defensible position would certainly strengthen a combatant's resolve, I think.

[Gökhan]

This depends all to heavily on the 'system' employed, so that what you are really saying is that morality is subservient to economic/sociological systems rather than the vice-versa (which is what I would propose). Because of this, the morality of which you speak really isn't 'morality' per se, but rather a codefied means of self-preservation within the context of some pre-existing system. Too wit: insider trading isn't bad, its just inefficient. If this is the case we have reached the pinacle of moral relativism, and I hope that previous posts in this forum can steer the attentive reader clear of such dangerous reasoning.

Hi dschouten,

I think there is no such thing like an abstract and unambigious morality that is
a transcendent and absolute standard to human behaviour.
Morality is an mass-doctrinal pamphlet, that manifests certain convictions, a group of people have agreed on and by that it qualifies to be an ideology.
Its the basic manifest of human will, it reflects the need to integrate humans under an instituiton of behavioural standards .
In totalitarian systems morality is the totalitism itself, and as in capitalsts systems morality seems to be seperated from other spheres of human life, where other paradigms dominate the actions.
Even the answer to the question what makes morality is totally dependent from the pre-existing culture of people. In Islam there is no morality, but Islam. Semantically it amounts to the same, for Islam is the utmost code of conduct for muslims, and by that qualifies for being called a morality, of course in the light of a muslim perspective.
By that sharia ruled countries are more morally, as the cultural and moral hypocrites of western nations, for they cant catch up with there preached morality.
So is there a universal morality?

[russ_watters]

Missed this before: You seem to be considering a society based solely on respect for individual relativism, claiming that such a society would ultimately break down. While I’m inclined to agree with you on that point what I am seeing overlooked here is any consideration for cultural relativism. Can such a thing as cultural relativism exist? That would require the contradictory position of saying: 'morality is a matter of opinion and no one's is any better than anyone else's, but you (the citizen) still need to do what I (the leader) say.' Not good for stability. Maybe a lot of Americans share that belief - maybe thats the reason so many distrust the government. Also, I need clarification on what exactly you mean by ‘absolute’. When you make the statement “Morality is as absolute as the laws of physics, though just as difficult to figure out.”, what exactly are you saying?
Is it a claim, for example, that morality has existed in nature, independent of man, in the form of something akin to a law, or is it merely to claim that all men have a moral code of some type? Also, what do you think makes it so difficult to figure out? Think of it this way - the laws of the universe exist independent of humans, but its only in the past 500 years or so that we've started to figure them out. For the first 20,000 years or so of human existence, we didn't even have a method for looking for them. Since most people consider morality to be philosophical/religious in nature, we're still not there yet in our pursuit of morality.

I see morality the same way. Now, it is true that humans are the only ones on earth that the total picture of morality is relevant to - but then, we're also the only ones capable of understanding the laws of physics too. If an alien race came to earth, I believe they would have a very similar morality to our own because that morality, quite simply,works. It is also true though, that other animals display some of the aspects of morality - in a way limited by their ability to grasp and follow it. Animals like wolves and monkeys, for example, arrange themselves into social structures because if they didn't, they'd die out. Spiders eat most of their young (an their mates) because doing so doesn't harm their existence (since they produce thousands of young at a time). The higher the level of the organism, the more constrained it is by the rules of morality.

[russ_watters]

im toying with the idea of the moraly right having to do with moraly stable

what i mean by moraly stable is a system of morals that supports a strong social/economic/military system (things that could be used to maintain the moral code). like in the case of ww2, the nazis would have been over thrown before long by another group who would divote less resources to vengfull or genocidal acts because it would detract from other goals that relate more closly to victory.
this is to say that i consider the differences in the moral code of the nazis to be a weakness

an example of an imoral thing that would damage an economic system would be insider trading. if something is moraly justifyable but damages the system, it weakens it and thus makes it less stable to being overtaken by something else

what im trying to understand is if the winners of wars and conflict have strong and stable moral systems and win because of the better moral code. sort of like 'survival of the fittest' refering to a moral system You and I are more or less on the same page, but I think you're underrating the complexity of the problem. The Soviet Union lasted 50 years or so by sucking dry its people and its land. China has lasted almost as long, but is moderating (because it knows it has to to survive). So this is part of the problem figuring out morality - the experimentation process takes generations. Communism as the Soviets envisioned it failed - maybe they can tweak the theory and try again.

Hitler succeeded for a surprising amount of time, but eventually his moral code led him to the conclusion he needed to take over a large part of the world and kill a whole lot of people. Unsurprisingly, the rest of the world resisted his vision and he failed.

[dschouten]

I see morality the same way. Now, it is true that humans are the only ones on earth that the total picture of morality is relevant to - but then, we're also the only ones capable of understanding the laws of physics too. If an alien race came to earth, I believe they would have a very similar morality to our own because that morality, quite simply,works. It is also true though, that other animals display some of the aspects of morality - in a way limited by their ability to grasp and follow it. Animals like wolves and monkeys, for example, arrange themselves into social structures because if they didn't, they'd die out. Spiders eat most of their young (an their mates) because doing so doesn't harm their existence (since they produce thousands of young at a time). The higher the level of the organism, the more constrained it is by the rules of morality.

This sounds vaguely reminiscient of a book written by Hunter at the turn of the twentieth century in which he idealized human morality as only a complex version of animal behaviour. His view of morality (like the view espoused by russ_watters above) is quite wrong I'm afraid.

Continuing in the line of explanatory examples, lets consider the "morally reprehensible" actions of your common spider. It would seem apparent to me that the act of a spider eating its young (or mates) can have no moral qualifiers: spiders quite simply eat their young by instinct. There are no 'good' spiders which refrain from doing this. All spiders do this. Condeming a spider, or applying any moral value to its actions, is like stating that my computer was 'wrong' in crashing on me today. Its just hard-wired that way. No value statement can be made about it.

[russ_watters]

This sounds vaguely reminiscient of a book written by Hunter at the turn of the twentieth century in which he idealized human morality as only a complex version of animal behaviour. His view of morality (like the view espoused by russ_watters above) is quite wrong I'm afraid.

Continuing in the line of explanatory examples, lets consider the "morally reprehensible" actions of your common spider. It would seem apparent to me that the act of a spider eating its young (or mates) can have no moral qualifiers: spiders quite simply eat their young by instinct. There are no 'good' spiders which refrain from doing this. All spiders do this. Condeming a spider, or applying any moral value to its actions, is like stating that my computer was 'wrong' in crashing on me today. Its just hard-wired that way. No value statement can be made about it. Your explanation doesn't address the differences between humans and spiders. In fact, the 'hard wiring' of morality (via evolution) into humans and spiders is further evidence to me of universal morality.

Spiders are clearly 'lower' forms of life than humans. As such, their 'hard wired' morality is less evolved and less complete. Your argument against an absolute morality is the same as my argument for it.

[Kerrie]

I'm sure there is much debate on that point in psychology circles where they discuss the depth of his mental illness. The veracity of his beliefs is not really all that relevant to this discussion for that reason.

not relevant to this discussion?? let's not allow our opinions get in the way of judgement russ...why do you think i used quotations around the words "right" and "moral"? i think you misunderstood my tone. please go back and read my post a little more carefully.

[russ_watters]

not relevant to this discussion?? let's not allow our opinions get in the way of judgement russ...why do you think i used quotations around the words "right" and "moral"? i think you misunderstood my tone. please go back and read my post a little more carefully. I think I misunderstood your tone too - and rereading your post, I have no idea why you put quotes around "right" and "moral." I'm honestly not following you - could you explain?

[Prometheus]

I see morality the same way.

I don't see morality your way at all. Are you saying that there is an absolute morality, and that other ways are not moral? Are you denying, as I gather from this post, that there are valid, appropriate subjective cultural aspects to morality?


Now, it is true that humans are the only ones on earth that the total picture of morality is relevant to

Please explain how it is true. How is the "total" picture of morality relevant to humans, and how many millennia has this been true, in your opinion?

[Kerrie]

I'm sure there is much debate on that point in psychology circles where they discuss the depth of his mental illness.

i was making the point using quotations that hitler thinks he is morally right, but the rest of the sane population does not. i am sure you have seen people using quotes around certain words to emphasize a hint of sarcasm?

The veracity of his beliefs is not really all that relevant to this discussion for that reason.
yes it is. the name of the topic literally asks the question "Are the moraly right the victors of war?" i blatantly answered the question with the example of adolf hitler's rule. because i believe morality is not a universal concept, but an individual one, my answer to the question is NO because hitler believed he was morally right, but did not win the war. perhaps we have different definitions of morality?

thus, i think you misunderstood me :smile:

[selfAdjoint]

i was making the point using quotations that hitler thinks he is morally right, but the rest of the sane population does not. i am sure you have seen people using quotes around certain words to emphasize a hint of sarcasm?


yes it is. the name of the topic literally asks the question "Are the moraly right the victors of war?" i blatantly answered the question with the example of adolf hitler's rule. because i believe morality is not a universal concept, but an individual one, my answer to the question is NO because hitler believed he was morally right, but did not win the war. perhaps we have different definitions of morality?

thus, i think you misunderstood me :smile:

I agree with you Kerrie. It is very relevant the Hitler and other vile tyrants did believe themselves to be justified. Stalin, too, for example. They had wrapped themselves each in his own theory to the point where the common morality no longer bound them.

This is not the way sociopaths' minds work, like that Columbine kid, but it seems to be what is required for a head of state to go off the rails.

[russ_watters]

Are you saying that there is an absolute morality, and that other ways are not moral? Yes. Are you denying, as I gather from this post, that there are valid, appropriate subjective cultural aspects to morality? Yes. Please explain how it is true. How is the "total" picture of morality relevant to humans, and how many millennia has this been true, in your opinion? Humans are the only animals capable of making the moral distinction between "kill" and "murder," for example. This has been true since humans started exploring the concept of morality. i was making the point using quotations that hitler thinks he is morally right, but the rest of the sane population does not. Fair enough. yes it is. the name of the topic literally asks the question "Are the moraly right the victors of war?" i blatantly answered the question with the example of adolf hitler's rule. because i believe morality is not a universal concept, but an individual one, my answer to the question is NO because hitler believed he was morally right, but did not win the war. perhaps we have different definitions of morality? Yes, we do have different definitions of morality. But apparently we are in agreement on Hitler being morally wrong. But are you also saying that because Hitler believed he was morally right, he was? Isn't that a contradiction? If morality is an individual concept, who are you (or I) to tell Hitler he's morally wrong? agree with you Kerrie. It is very relevant the Hitler and other vile tyrants did believe themselves to be justified. Stalin, too, for example. They had wrapped themselves each in his own theory to the point where the common morality no longer bound them. [emphasis added] Setting aside the absolutism vs relativism argument for a moment, my point in my response to Kerrie was that I don't believe that Hitler had a moral theory and that is why I don't consider discusion of his supposed theory relevant here. My above response to Kerrie uses your (and her) assumption that he did have a moral theory in place and that it governed his actions. I'm perfectly fine with doing that just for the sake of argument, but I want to be perfectly clear that I don't consider that a reasonable assumption.

edit: SA, are you really comfortable with the use of the word "theory" in this context?

[Prometheus]

Humans are the only animals capable of making the moral distinction between "kill" and "murder," for example. This has been true since humans started exploring the concept of morality.

You say that you consider that there is an absolute morality, and that it is objective.

What, might I ask, is the source of this morality?

If people are the source of this morality, then there is clearly difference among the people of the world. How do you determine which, if any, comply with your objective tenets of morality?

Are you moral? How do you know?

How do you define the word moral?

Do you not consider that most people who use the word "moral" consider themselves to be moral? Do you think that Hitler would have considered himself to be immoral?


If morality is an individual concept, who are you (or I) to tell Hitler he's morally wrong?

My point exactly. How have you decided for yourself that you know with certainty that your understanding of morality is more accurate and more true and more in line with the objective, absolute morality than his, such that you can claim that you know that he was not moral?

[russ_watters]

What, might I ask, is the source of this morality? What is the source of the laws governing gravity? God? "They just are? I don't know, but where they came from really doesn't factor into the scientific pursuit of understanding those laws.If people are the source of this morality, then there is clearly difference among the people of the world. Yes, thats correct. But like I said, I don't think people are the source anymore than Einstein was the source of Relativity: he didn't make it true, he just discovered that it was.Do you not consider that most people who use the word "moral" consider themselves to be moral? Do you think that Hitler would have considered himself to be immoral? Yes, no.How have you decided for yourself that you know with certainty that your understanding of morality is more accurate and more true and more in line with the objective, absolute morality than his, such that you can claim that you know that he was not moral? Mine works better than his. You only need to take a quick look at what happened in WWII to see that. But don't use the word "certainty." It doesn't exist. With Hitler, its relatively clear what is right and what is wrong. With other issues it isn't.

[dschouten]

The simple fact that a person may falsify claims concerning moral judgements seems to have been lost on a large proportion of contributors to this forum. To rehash an overused example, just because Hitler said "I am doing the right thing" doesn't mean he really believed it. Upon reading Shirers' ponderous tome "Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich" you would realise just how well Hitler knowingly utilised moral values statements to his own advantage, fully realizing that he was lying through his teeth.

The fact is, for whatever reason, Hitler hated Jews, and so he invented some justification for killing them. He knew all along that what he was doing was wrong, but he ignored this simple fact and perpetuated his treachery to the end.

[Les Sleeth]

What is the source of the laws governing gravity? God? "They just are? I don't know, but where they came from really doesn't factor into the scientific pursuit of understanding those laws.

I don’t quite understand your logic there. At least with gravity it never fails to manifest in the presence of mass, so it seems logical to assume it might be a “given” aspect of the universe/existence.

Morality, however, is hardly consistently manifested. If it were a universal absolute, shouldn’t we expect the same invariability (in law) as gravity? Also, if we say morality is universal, then given the presence of evil and how contrary to morality it seems, mustn’t we assume evil is a universal absolute as well?

I think morality is purely a human intellectual invention, a conceptual formulation devised to characterize behaviors which are perceived as threatening or impeding to one’s existence and development. It is borne of our will to survive and thrive, and our desire to get others to acknowledge our “right” to survive and thrive. That’s why for many of us, we’ve simplified morality by defining it as doing no harm to others, as well as the not harming the environment (since we’ve recognized that harming the environment is potentially threatening to others).

What I think is interesting is that as a person becomes more conscious and less self-centered, they become more “moral.” In fact, it all gets sort of switched around where one derives joy from benefiting others and the environment (whether the “environment” be considered natural or political or social or cultural . . . ). So which is more practical -- to give priority to being moral, or to give priority to becoming more conscious and selfless?

[Useless]

Spiders are clearly 'lower' forms of life than humans. As such, their 'hard wired' morality is less evolved and less complete. Your argument against an absolute morality is the same as my argument for it.

Cobras are clearly 'lower' forms of life than humans, but they, contrary to humans, never fight for status – they use ritualized forms of superiority demonstration instead. So shouldn't we consider their 'hard wired' morality more evolved and more complete as they don't inflict physical suffering to each other, while in humans it's almost inevitable (and in fact is considered moral in some cases)?

I think every animal (including humans) have some sort of moral sense and the only purpose of it is to serve the prosperity of the species. So the actual form of the morality is ultimately dictated by the species genome and has nothing to do with absolute laws (I think morality can be called "absolute" only within the species just because all individuals have almost identical DNA). And if murdering was beneficial (at least not harmful) to the human race it would undoubtedly be considered moral.

(sorry for my English).

[Kerrie]

Morality, however, is hardly consistently manifested. If it were a universal absolute, shouldn’t we expect the same invariability (in law) as gravity? Also, if we say morality is universal, then given the presence of evil and how contrary to morality it seems, mustn’t we assume evil is a universal absolute as well?

great point, morality can hardly be compared to science because of it's (morality) subjectivity...

Yes, we do have different definitions of morality. But apparently we are in agreement on Hitler being morally wrong. But are you also saying that because Hitler believed he was morally right, he was? Isn't that a contradiction? If morality is an individual concept, who are you (or I) to tell Hitler he's morally wrong?

no, i am definitely not saying hitler's morality is one that is approved by the masses...he, in his thought process did believe himself to be moral in what he was doing...his "charisma" (notice the quotes again :wink: ) overpowered many (nazis) into following him, thus probably justifying his "morals" within his own thought process...

morality is definitely subjective russ...there are more socially accepted forms of morality among greater amounts of people which could be equivalent to what we refer to as "society standards"...

Cobras are clearly 'lower' forms of life than humans, but they, contrary to humans, never fight for status – they use ritualized forms of superiority demonstration instead. So shouldn't we consider their 'hard wired' morality more evolved and more complete as they don't inflict physical suffering to each other, while in humans it's almost inevitable (and in fact is considered moral in some cases)?

interesting way of pointing out how human beings could be a "lower form of life"... :smile:

[Prometheus]

What is the source of the laws governing gravity? God? "They just are? I don't know, but where they came from really doesn't factor into the scientific pursuit of understanding those laws.

I find this highly unsatisfying. "They just are" seems to me to be a decision based without evidence. How do you know that there is an objective morality. On what basis have you determined that there is an objective morality, that mankind is on the path to find it, and that certain people can be determined to have a greater degree of morality than others?

Mine works better than his. You only need to take a quick look at what happened in WWII to see that.

How do you know that yours works better than his? Because you said so. Is that not a subjective response? I wonder if you can really expect others, such as Hitler, to give a response different from yours, to the effect that they recognize that their morality is inferior than yours. I certainly cannot say in an objective manner that your morality, about which I know nothing, is better than Hitler's. I cannot even fathom what that might mean.

I have taken far more than a quick look at WWII in my life, yet I still have no idea what you could even be talking about. Because of Hitler's action in WWII, you, whom I do not know, de facto have more morality than him, whatever morality might mean and whoever you might be.

You used the word god, albeit followed by a question mark. Is god in fact the basis for your attempt to understand morality?

If Hitler had won the war, would this not have been a good thing for the people in Germany, as a whole? Would this not have been excellent for Germany, as a whole? Throughout history, mankind has warred, and typically victors are much better off. War plays an important role in the population distribution of our species, and victors typically greatly improve their lot in history. Are you denying the morality of Hitler because he lost the war, or because of your perceived justifications for the war? Hitler set out to shift the population distribution of Europe. Are you judging his morality on the basis of the justification that he used to motivate this followers, due to the fact that he took advantage of advanced technology to hasten the rate of redistribution, or something else?

This absolute morality of yours, is it attainable by humans at our current degree of evolution, or are we still far off in the future? Will our species ever reach this degree of morality, or will we die out or evolve into another species before attaining it?

How do you define the word, or the concept of, morality? I am particularly interested in the part where the morality of the other animals can be compared with human morality. I really have to idea what you might mean when talking about the morality of cows or whatever. Please explain.

[russ_watters]

I don’t quite understand your logic there. At least with gravity it never fails to manifest in the presence of mass, so it seems logical to assume it might be a “given” aspect of the universe/existence. But where did it come from?

[Les Sleeth]

But where did it come from?

:smile: Well, that's a wonderful subject to contemplate (as part of contemplating where it all came from), but I thought your point was that since we can't seem to answer that, we just accept it as "that's the way it is."

I suppose if, applied to morality, you are pointing to the marvelous fact that we can desire to be, and learn to love being, beneficial to others, that is also a deep subject. I do think that is our truest nature, and when people are destructive it's because they've lost touch with that. So maybe I might agree with you after all if by "absolute morality" you are referring to our most basic nature, a nature it seems only humans are capable of choosing to fully realize, thoroughly ignore, and lots of spots in between.

[russ_watters]

:smile: Well, that's a wonderful subject to contemplate (as part of contemplating where it all came from), but I thought your point was that since we can't seem to answer that, we just accept it as "that's the way it is." That is precisely my point. Morality, however, is hardly consistently manifested. If it were a universal absolute, shouldn’t we expect the same invariability (in law) as gravity? Also, if we say morality is universal, then given the presence of evil and how contrary to morality it seems, mustn’t we assume evil is a universal absolute as well? Certainly. I think what you are missing is that our laws (the US Constitution, for example) is not the universal moral law, but our latest effort to approximate it. Similarly, there have been a good half dozen attempts to explain gravity. They weren't all the same, were they? When flaws were found, the theory was adjusted to be a better approximation of how gravity really works - just like the progress we've made with figuring out morality. think morality is purely a human intellectual invention, a conceptual formulation devised to characterize behaviors which are perceived as threatening or impeding to one’s existence and development.It is borne of our will to survive and thrive, and our desire to get others to acknowledge our “right” to survive and thrive.[emphasis added] In other words, its a product of our evolution, right? Wouldn't that mean that morality is part of the scientific theory of evolution? What I think is interesting is that as a person becomes more conscious and less self-centered, they become more “moral.” So do I. I think thats a biproduct of the fact that what we do to others does come back to us. It takes intelligence to see past the immediate consequences and predict the secondary consequences of our actions. Cobras are clearly 'lower' forms of life than humans, but they, contrary to humans, never fight for status – they use ritualized forms of superiority demonstration instead. So shouldn't we consider their 'hard wired' morality more evolved and more complete as they don't inflict physical suffering to each other, while in humans it's almost inevitable (and in fact is considered moral in some cases)? I'm a little thin on cobra behavior, but I suspect that their interaction is far less complex than human interaction, making such displays work in their case where they wouldn't work in ours. I think every animal (including humans) have some sort of moral sense and the only purpose of it is to serve the prosperity of the species. So the actual form of the morality is ultimately dictated by the species genome and has nothing to do with absolute laws (I think morality can be called "absolute" only within the species just because all individuals have almost identical DNA). So, morality is a product of our evolution? Thats only very slightly different than my view. My view is that that evolution moves in a specific direction. (good first post, btw - welcome to the site) no, i am definitely not saying hitler's morality is one that is approved by the masses... That wasn't my question, Kerrie. I know we are in agreement that Hitler was morally wrong. My question is does that matter? If morality is truly personal, then neither you or I can tell Hitler he's morally wrong. If he thought he was right, then he was - and we should have stayed out of WWII (Atlantic). morality is definitely subjective russ...there are more socially accepted forms of morality among greater amounts of people which could be equivalent to what we refer to as "society standards"... There have also been a number of different theories on gravity. So what? That does not mean all of them are right. If that's what you're saying, then you must also concede Hitler was right.I find this highly unsatisfying. "They just are" seems to me to be a decision based without evidence. How do you know that there is an objective morality. On what basis have you determined that there is an objective morality, that mankind is on the path to find it, and that certain people can be determined to have a greater degree of morality than others? How do you know there is a law of gravity? The evidence to me suggests that there is. But ultimately, I don't know - and neither does anyone else. And yes, I agree that that is unsatisfying. How do you know that yours works better than his? Because you said so. No, no, no! Hitler put his morality into practice and it failed! That's how we know it doesn't work. Just like the competing theories of gravity. I wonder if you can really expect others, such as Hitler, to give a response different from yours, to the effect that they recognize that their morality is inferior than yours. I don't think Hitler was sane, so I don't consider his opinion on the matter relevant. However, if we asked Marx the same question - if he was intellectually honest, he'd say that his theory failed. But don't be all that surprised if he didn't - many, many scientists are unable to admit their theory (their life's work) was a failure. I certainly cannot say in an objective manner that your morality, about which I know nothing, is better than Hitler's. My morality is similar to the Judeo-Christian one and compatible with American Democracy. Beyond that, if you ask me specific questions.... Because of Hitler's action in WWII, you, whom I do not know, de facto have more morality than him, whatever morality might mean and whoever you might be. I appreciate you're giving me the benefit of the doubt. For what its worth, I've never killed anyone on purpose or accidentally. You used the word god, albeit followed by a question mark. Is god in fact the basis for your attempt to understand morality? Not quite. To some people, everything, including morality and gravity are rules handed down by God. I am not one of those people. If there is a God, then I'd agree though. I accept that it may be that "they just are," but I can't say I'm comfortable with that. I guess that makes me a skeptical(hopeful?) Christian.If Hitler had won the war, would this not have been a good thing for the people in Germany, as a whole? I don't remember the exact quote, but it went something like 'first they came for the gypsies and I did nothing, then they came for........and then they came for me.' No, I don't think a German victory in WWII would have been good even for Germany. Are you denying the morality of Hitler because he lost the war, or because of your perceived justifications for the war? His justifications and actions. It has nothing to do with whether he won or lost.Are you judging his morality on the basis of the justification that he used to motivate this followers... Largely, yes - thats pretty much all we know of his morality. This absolute morality of yours, is it attainable by humans at our current degree of evolution, or are we still far off in the future? Excellent question (at least you understand me, even if you disagree). I don't believe that moral perfection is possible for humans because we are an imperfect species. But we can get very, very close.Will our species ever reach this degree of morality, or will we die out or evolve into another species before attaining it? We will continue to evolve, of course, but I'll leave the question of whether we become another species to biologists.

Maybe I need to adjust an earlier statement though - I said we're the only species who the total picture of morality is relevant to. Maybe that should be most relevant to.How do you define the word, or the concept of, morality? I am particularly interested in the part where the morality of the other animals can be compared with human morality. I really have to idea what you might mean when talking about the morality of cows or whatever. Please explain. Maybe you'll consider this a cop out, but... Morality (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=morality): "2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct." That's as good a definition as any I've seen (except maybe instead of "ideas" put "rules" or "theories".

What I mean when I talk about animal morality isn't readily evident with cows - they don't have much "conduct" that I'm aware of. Though I guess the way they interact with their mates and their young could have morality applied to it. As relatively high level mammals, mothers nurse and care for their young (as opposed to eating them, as spiders do). I would judge that to be a moral behavior.

[Integral]

Russ,
Been thinking about your seminars decision that morality is absoulte... Is not that a cultural decision, based on a culture that you are so firmly embedded in that no other conclusion would be possible?

Morality is a product of the predominate culture, sure you can declare the morality absolute for YOUR culture but can you cross cultural lines with that dictum?

[dschouten]

Maybe you'll consider this a cop out, but... Morality (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=morality): "2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct." That's as good a definition as any I've seen (except maybe instead of "ideas" put "rules" or "theories".

Which animals have ideas on right or wrong? Does a bear muse about killing a rabbit? How are ideas 'hard-wired'? You are contradicting yourself russ_watters.

[Kerrie]

That wasn't my question, Kerrie. I know we are in agreement that Hitler was morally wrong. My question is does that matter? If morality is truly personal, then neither you or I can tell Hitler he's morally wrong. If he thought he was right, then he was - and we should have stayed out of WWII (Atlantic). There have also been a number of different theories on gravity. So what? That does not mean all of them are right. If that's what you're saying, then you must also concede Hitler was right.


i don't recall using the term "personal" for morality, but more subjective...Hitler's morality was "right" at the time he was in power only because he had power over masses...don't confuse that statement with me declaring that in my opinion he was right in what he did...this would be a serious misunderstanding on your part, and on your part only...no one else is deriving this logic from my posts other then you. as far as it mattering, well, millions of people died because of his morals, so you tell me, does it matter?

i still do not see you answering the question as literally stated:

Are the morally right the victors of war? i don't see why it is so complicated.
take the question literally, and in the example of hitler, he thought he was morally right, but was not ultimately the victor of WWII. thus, i answered NO to the question.

either you are getting flustered in your posting because you have several members here challenging you, or there is a failure to communicate in this forum. I think I made my point quite clear, as others seem to understand it too, but I am not understanding yours since you ask me a question, and I answer it concisely.

[russ_watters]

Russ,
Been thinking about your seminars decision that morality is absoulte... Is not that a cultural decision, based on a culture that you are so firmly embedded in that no other conclusion would be possible? The US is a multicultural society. So I'd say it is a conclusion more evident for Americans than for most others because of that fact.

Others have suggested that morality is personal or cultural. If Australians (for example) were of one culture and completely isolated from other cultures, that would be fine. But then, wouldn't that also make it absolute? If your culture is the only one that you know of that exists, then your way is, by default, the only way. That was my point earlier about seeing no difference between a "functional" absolute and just a plain old absolute. In our world today though, there are no major isolated cultures. If nothing else, the UN (and trade) connects us.Morality is a product of the predominate culture, sure you can declare the morality absolute for YOUR culture but can you cross cultural lines with that dictum? If two cultures ever have to interact, then you must do exactly that. Why do you think there is ever a debate as to whether or not China should get MFN trading status? Our morality and theirs (theirs is changing to be more like ours) are incompatible and one must be right while the other is wrong. edit: Or if we accept both can be right, we accept a position of hypocrisy.

The Democrats are largely correct when they complain about our companies' use of cheap labor in other countries. If it is immoral for children to work in sweatshops in the US, then it is immoral for us to do business with them in China. In that case, we (when it gets out, the consumers) make the decision that our way is the right way, and the UN makes a judgement on whether or not we are correct.

edit: how could I forget. The first line of the body of the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

The US might be the first country set up with that belief, but we are no longer the only one. And more importantly, the UN is set up with that belief as well. The second line of the UN Charter: "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small..." The signatories of the UN Charter have agreed that morality is universal (or, at least, that it should be treated that way).

[russ_watters]

Which animals have ideas on right or wrong? Does a bear muse about killing a rabbit? Must a bear understand gravity for gravity to act on a bear? How are ideas 'hard-wired'? Its not so much the ideas, but the actions that are "hard-wired". Take those actions and apply the moral rules and you can decide whether the "hard-wired" actions are moral or immoral regardless of whether the bear even knows those ideas exist (I suspect he does not). You are contradicting yourself I don't think I am, except maybe that I don't always adequately separate the ideas from the actions (I'm trying). But then, the rest of you don't either. That (to me) is the crux of the probem.i don't recall using the term "personal" for morality, but more subjective... You used the word "individual." I don't see a difference, but if there is one, by all means explain it to me.Hitler's morality was "right" at the time he was in power only because he had power over masses... So, might ("power") makes right? That means if I go out and kill someone that I am morally right because they couldn't stop me? Yikes.

In any case, we did stop him. By your reasoning, doesn't that make us right and him wrong? Or does that make us wrong for interfering in something that was none of our business? Or is it possible for the same actions to be both right and wrong depending on who makes them and when? If so, how do you reconcile contradictions like the Hitler contradiction (if he's right, what business did we have entering WWII?)?

edit: crap, editing error. working on it...either you are getting flustered in your posting because you have several members here challenging you, or there is a failure to communicate in this forum. I'm not flustered - I'm quite comfortable arguing this with 8 people at once (as long as I don't piss off my boss). There is a failure to communicate though: the original poster has stated that the question was misworded. At this point, that's irrelevant though. We've moved past it. I think I made my point quite clear, as others seem to understand it too, but I am not understanding yours since you ask me a question, and I answer it concisely. Your answers are concise and easy to understand, but they don't answer the question I asked. I understand your opinion just fine. What you haven't said yet is why your opinion is acceptable. WHY is it ok for the same actions to be right or wrong depending on who views them? Why was it (or wasn't it?) acceptable for us to enter WWII?

[russ_watters]

i still do not see you answering the question as literally stated:

"Are the morally right the victors of war?"
take the question literally, and in the example of hitler, he thought he was morally right, but was not ultimately the victor of WWII. thus, i answered NO to the question. Ok then - simple answer: yes (in this case). Why? Both you and I think Hitler was morally wrong. By implication, that makes his enemies morally right. Therefore in that case, the morally right won the war.

Hmm.... same example, different answers based on different criterion. How do we reconcile them?

If it still matters, this is the first sentence of the first post: it seems to me that the ones who win the wars turn out to be the moraly right The question in the title is worded backwards and h/she posted in post 13 (in response to you...) sorry, i missnamed my topic. what i ment to ask is if the victors of war are the moraly right. In other words, does might make right? My answer is no. Right and wrong exist independently of who wins. And that's how this absolutism vs relativism debate started: the answer to the question for even an individual example depends on differing opinions on who was right and who was wrong.

[Prometheus]

Maybe you'll consider this a cop out, but... Morality (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=morality): "2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct." That's as good a definition as any I've seen (except maybe instead of "ideas" put "rules" or "theories".

Please attempt again to define reality. This definition is far too imprecise, in my opinion. You defined reality as any (implying that there are multiple such systems and not just one) system of ideas, or rules, or theories. Ideas, rules, and theories about gravity are not gravity, and can have no influence on gravity itself. In like manner, your definition of morality can have no influence on absolute morality as you seem to be using it. Your definition uses any of a number of (the word 'any' is yours) subjective possibilities (ideas, rules, and theories are subjective).


Why do you think there is ever a debate as to whether or not China should get MFN trading status? Our morality and theirs (theirs is changing to be more like ours) are incompatible and one must be right while the other is wrong.

Now, I am lost. You consider that what is the main point of difference here is our morality? Do you think that our moralities are incompatible? What might this mean? What does it possibly have to do with the economic purpose of granting MFN status? Why must one be right while the other is wrong? This last question is most important to me. Why must one be right and one be wrong? Two completely different cultures, and you say that one has a "right" morality and the other has a "wrong" morality? Which, in your opinion, is right? Is the morality of the one that is right perfect? If it is not perfect, how can it be right? Right is an absolute term, not a relative one, such as 'more right'.


edit: Or if we accept both can be right, we accept a position of hypocrisy.

Now, aren't you preaching? You claim that those who have the ability, the intelligence, and the insight to recognize that different cultures have different cultures, and that therefore they may have developed different values and senses of morality, is hypocritical? You claim that we should accept an absolute morality. If so, whose? Given, as you say, that no morality is perfect, why should we accept your presumption that we can somehow decide objectively which of any given two is closer to your unobtainable and unknowable absolute morality.

If it is so easy for you to know, objectively and absolutely, that your morality is closer to the absolute than the morality of China, for example, then please tell me how you know this. What are your objective criteria for absolutely knowing the objective superiority of of one person's/culture's morality over another?

How is it that those with a morality that is inferior to yours came about such an inferior morality? How is it that you came about developing an objectively superior morality? Is it intelligence, or evolution? How can you know that you are closer to the unknowable perfection?

[russ_watters]

I think I made my point quite clear... and I answer it concisely. Yes, you were clear and concise. And ironically, this is the source of our disagreement: I do not consider this to be a question (moral absolutism vs relativism) that can be answered so clearly and concisely. You (singular and plural) have said (paraphrase) that morality is individually/culturally relative - and stop there, don't pursue the question any further, don't ask why, just accept that it is true.

Simple. Clear. Concise.

I find it unbelievable that a group of scientists can do such a thing as stop there. But I have found that most people who hold the position of moral relativism have done just that: stopped there and not considered the question any further. In fact, thats why they continue to hold that position. That's the reason I admonished Integral earlier (harshly, I admit).

This belief leads to paradoxes like the Hitler paradox: Was Hitler right or wrong? Well, that depends (according to relativism)... Ok, well if Hitler was right (according to him) and morality is individualy/culturaly relative, what right do we have to even judge him at all, much less judge him wrong and go to war with him to stop him?

What right do we have to tell the Chinese that Tienanmen square was wrong?

What right do we have to tell the Rwandan's that killing each other is wrong?

What right do we have to tell most 3rd world countries that child labor/sweatshops are wrong - and tell our corporations that its wrong to do business with them?

What right do we have, even creating an organization such as the UN to monitor and judge morality (via the Human Rights Committee and World Court)?

Further, if might makes right and no one can claim based on principles that they are right and someone else is wrong, doesn't that mean that international conflict resolution is impossible? How can someone argue in front of the world court or at the Hague or Nurenburg that someone else did something wrong if right and wrong is individually relative (indeed, how can your local cop even give you a speeding ticket?)? The only recourse we have then in working out our differences is war. But I guess thats ok if might makes right...

From my experience in my ethics/morality seminars, I know a large part of the reason people don't like moral absolutism (despite the fact, ironically, that most people claim to be religious...). Most people consider it (me) preachy. Arrogant. Presumptuous. And yet right now in the TD forum, we swat Relativity deniers and perpetual motion machine inventers aside with a sweep of a hand, like flies. What gives us the right? How do we know? How can we be so presumptuous? We all accept that there is one set of laws governing physics and we understand them well enough to speak with some authority on them. Well here's the thing - most people if you press them will give the same answers to specific moral questions, even if not the absoluteness/relativeness of morality. Kerrie and I agreed that from our outside point of view, Hitler was wrong. WHY? Is it just a coincidence? No. That's the universal moral code manifesting itself. It is a historical fact that the moral code of the world is coalescing. The UN is the culmination of that: one world, united under one moral code (not everyone is following it yet, but most signed up for it...). That isn't a coincidence, thats evolution and discovery. The evolution of our moral code as we discover the universal moral code.

So is it presumptuous for me to say Hitler was wrong? No! If pressed, I expect you would all agree. But it makes you uncomfortable to say its an absolute and besides that, its a lot of responsibility - if Hitler was wrong, you would have a duty to stop him. If morality is relative, there is no blood on your hands if you watch an atrocity and do nothing. If morality is absolute, then there is. So maybe thats part of the problem too: guilt. The responsibility inherrent in moral absolutisim makes people feel guilty.

[russ_watters]

Please attempt again to define reality [emphasis added]. I'll assume thats a typo. This definition is far too imprecise, in my opinion.Fair enough. You defined reality as any (implying that there are multiple such systems and not just one) system of ideas, or rules, or theories. Yes - and there clearly are mutliple such theories - just only one right one (or rather, complete one). Ideas, rules, and theories about gravity are not gravity, and can have no influence on gravity itself. Correct. The theory of gravity is not gravity, but rather a description of how gravity works. Similarly, any particular moral code is not moral conduct, but rather a description of conduct that is moral or immoral.
In like manner, your definition of morality can have no influence on absolute morality... Also correct. I don't see the problem here. I have never stated that I know the one complete, correct theory. I think my moral code is close, but it is not complete. Your definition uses any of a number of (the word 'any' is yours) subjective possibilities (ideas, rules, and theories are subjective). The definition used the word "ideas," but I prefer the stronger(more scientific) words "rules" (laws) and "theories." The difference is minor.

edit: thinking about it a little more, the problem you have with my definition may be that it isn't specific enough and covers both ideas and conduct, which are separate pieces of the same issue. I would tend to agree. "Morality" is the overall subject we're discussing. But you can also separate "Moral conduct" from "moral theory." This seems to me to be a minor point of contention though. Now, I am lost. You consider that what is the main point of difference here is our morality? Do you think that our moralities are incompatible? What might this mean? What does it possibly have to do with the economic purpose of granting MFN status? The U.S. government has, in the past, made China's morality a trade issue. IE, fix your moral problems or we won't grant MFN status. Yes, our moralities are incompatible and the U.S. gov't (and the UN, btw) makes statements to that effect on a fairly regular basis.Why must one be right while the other is wrong? This last question is most important to me. Why must one be right and one be wrong? Good. That's the key question to me too. Why must one be right and the other be wrong? Because if the U.S. interacts with a country that does things we consider immoral and doesn't do anything about it, that makes us immoral. To put a finer point on it: to not challenge an act that you consider immoral means you are, through your actions, condonining it. That is the entire point of "never again." We, by our inaction, are culpable.Two completely different cultures, and you say that one has a "right" morality and the other has a "wrong" morality? Which, in your opinion, is right? In the case of specific actions of China vs the US? The US (and remember - the rest of the UN agrees) is right and China is wrong. How can I be so arrogant/presumptuous as to say that (the question everyone else is avoiding answering, themselves)? Ours works and theirs doesn't. Simple as that. Is the morality of the one that is right perfect? Certainly not. If it is not perfect, how can it be right? GPS works, yet the theory of Relativity is not perfect. GPS works because Einstein's Relativity is more right than Galileo's. Right is an absolute term, not a relative one, such as 'more right'. I never said our moral code is "right" - as in, 'absolutely perfect.' I said that in this specific case ours works and theirs doesn't. Therefore, their actions are wrong and their moral code is flawed. If ours isn't perfect, that means ours is flawed too - theirs is just more flawed than ours, just as Galileo's relativity is more flawed than Einstein's and a GPS tech would be wrong to try to use Galilean relativity when programming a GPS satellite since we know a better theory exists.

For the rest of your post, I answered it in the above post (ironically, without reading yours - I saw it coming).

[russ_watters]

The U.S. government has, in the past, made China's morality a trade issue. IE, fix your moral problems or we won't grant MFN status. This probably deserves a source. HERE (http://www.brookings.edu/comm/PolicyBriefs/Pb050/pb50.htm) it is: President Clinton's 1993 executive order, which formally linked renewal of China's MFN to human rights improvements, imposed conditions which focused mainly on individual political prisoners: accounting for imprisoned dissidents, refraining from their use in prison labor, and allowing the International Committee of the Red Cross to evaluate their condition. Long article, I didn't read all of it (yet). I post it for that quote alone for a fact reference - its 2/3 of the way down on the page.

[Prometheus]

Kerrie and I agreed that from our outside point of view, Hitler was wrong. WHY? Is it just a coincidence? No. That's the universal moral code manifesting itself.

Sure. You are otherwise at completely opposite ends of the morality spectrum, yet somehow you managed to agree on this. You claim that an agreement by 2 people in an extremely similar cultural context is proof of a universal moral code. How can you be serious?


So is it presumptuous for me to say Hitler was wrong? No! If pressed, I expect you would all agree.

This is also presumptuous. How can you presume that if pressed we would all agree with you on the morality of Hitler, when we clearly do not agree with you on the context of your words or their application.


But it makes you uncomfortable to say its an absolute and besides that, its a lot of responsibility - if Hitler was wrong, you would have a duty to stop him.

We do not have a duty to stop him because of your definition of morality.


So maybe thats part of the problem too: guilt. The responsibility inherrent in moral absolutisim makes people feel guilty.

I assume that you are losing it under the pressure of widespread lack of acceptance of your definition of absolute morality. Therefore, I will forgive this ridiculous claim. If morality is absolute, yet you claim that no one achieves this absolute, then are you not presumptious in taking action to enforce your admittedly clearly imperfect understanding of morality? Do you not feel guilty for imposing your morality on Hitler, when you clearly cannot have any degree of certainty that your morality is superior to his, as you admittedly do not know the perfection of absolute morality. You are the one who must feel guilty, as you are declaring one type of morality superior to another, yours, and you are condoning the use of force based on your declaration, all while you admit that you cannot approach an undertanding of your absolute morality.

You claim that you are on the right track to the perfection of morality. On what basis do you make this claim? Is it somehow based on your own subjective opinion, recognized in relation with the subjective opinions of certain others? How can you claim to known that you are on the right track, when you claim that your undertanding is imperfect? I can certainly understand how people might consider you arrogant and presumptious. To claim that there is an aboslute good in the world, and that you know better than others at approximating it is quite a claim.

To me, it seems that you, like everyone else in the world, are judging the world from your own subjective opinion and experiences. To claim that your experience is more in line with an ideal good sounds like a religious argument. Are you religious, and is this a religious argument? You judge good and evil from your own perspective, just as everyone else does, you claim that your opinion is somehow superior to others because it belongs to you, just as everyone else does, yet you claim that yours is better in a universal, absolute sense, which is a step beyond what most people do, outside of the context of religious arguments, in my experience.

[dschouten]

Must a bear understand gravity for gravity to act on a bear?
But this is completely different: gravity is a universal (presumably, lets ignore the physics for now) action that affects all objects, even inanimate ones. Morality doesn't. In fact, if we are to start transposing human morality to the animal realm we quickly run into arbitrary boundaries: is a sea urchin bound by moral law? If so, then why not also a rock? If not, then where does the boundary lay (exactly)?

I would contend that morality is an intrinsically internal concept, dealing with judgements or value statements and motivations of an action rather than the action itself. Gravity is an intrinsically external concept in the sense that regardless of one's intent, gravity acts unswervingly in its timeless fashion.

Therefore, a bear (or anything else for that matter) need not understand gravity to heed it. However, the understanding of morality is tied with its application: one would never accuse a mentally-deficient person of 'badness' to the same extent as a competent person (in fact, this argument itself reeks of moral discernment).

[Prometheus]

But this is completely different: gravity is a universal (presumably, lets ignore the physics for now) action that affects all objects, even inanimate ones. Morality doesn't. In fact, if we are to start transposing human morality to the animal realm we quickly run into arbitrary boundaries: is a sea urchin bound by moral law? If so, then why not also a rock? If not, then where does the boundary lay (exactly)?

I would contend that morality is an intrinsically internal concept, dealing with judgements or value statements and motivations of an action rather than the action itself. Gravity is an intrinsically external concept in the sense that regardless of one's intent, gravity acts unswervingly in its timeless fashion.

Therefore, a bear (or anything else for that matter) need not understand gravity to heed it. However, the understanding of morality is tied with its application: one would never accuse a mentally-deficient person of 'badness' to the same extent as a competent person (in fact, this argument itself reeks of moral discernment).

Well said.

[Kerrie]

This belief leads to paradoxes like the Hitler paradox: Was Hitler right or wrong? Well, that depends (according to relativism)... Ok, well if Hitler was right (according to him) and morality is individualy/culturaly relative, what right do we have to even judge him at all, much less judge him wrong and go to war with him to stop him?


this statement makes sense (finally) to me in understanding your viewpoint...internet forums are great for new ideas, so long as the communication rings clear to the receiving party. yes, i do realize the words of the question were meant to be asked in a different order, however, either way it is still the same question. my answer would still be no.

the example of hitler is definitely an extreme one...perhaps we should choose a more "typical" example?

Further, if might makes right and no one can claim based on principles that they are right and someone else is wrong, doesn't that mean that international conflict resolution is impossible?

in theory, you have a valid point, however, what happens when there becomes one source (the UN as an example) for setting these principles for the entire world? you could have totalitarianism eventually~
A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).

in the evolution of human society, perhaps those who challenge certain principles (certainly not all) bring about growth in humanity? remember growth is sometimes a painful process. america (in general) has this ideal of a peaceful world where we all hold hands and love one another, thus why our nation intervenes in other countries conflicts. why? i suppose the intentions to keep peace are good (unless there are special interests in getting involved), but it ends up that our own people die needlessly because of our interference. truly, i don't see any real benefit to that ultimately when our intention is to bring about one viewpoint of "morality".

[loseyourname]

Wow. Is Russ honestly the only person here that thinks all humans should treat each other a certain way?

[Kerrie]

Wow. Is Russ honestly the only person here that thinks all humans should treat each other a certain way?

what does this have to do with the topic at hand? the underlying question here is who or what determines a basic sense of morality...do you honestly believe those participating in this discussion would mistreat others on a regular basis, or did you read the entire thread?

[loseyourname]

I read the entire thread - although to be fair, I am reading Russ' posts more closely than others. I don't think the underlying question here (at least not as posed by Russ) is who or what determines a basic sense of morality, but rather whether or not there exists any basic sense of morality.

The contradiction Russ is seeing here, and the contradiction I am seeing as well, is that from a relativistic standpoint, any system of morality is as valid as any other. For that reason, a relativist has no ground from which to make any moral judgement. In effect, a relativist cannot say that a human ought to be treated in any particular manner. He might say that he prefers to treat others a certain way, but he cannot generalize from that particular case to conclude that all humans ought to treat each other in the same manner. To do so would be to introduce an absolute moral standard, which would contradict the position of moral relativism.

[wtfc]

dschouten, welcome to slave morality!

Morality is SUBJECTIVE.

You obviously have no clue as to what moral concepts are. They are not perminant, and change constantly. There is no such thing as a universal morality because it is a generalization of life as a whole.



Well put. Just the way it is. Everybody thinks they are right.
To main topic, winning a war has nothing to do with being morally right. If a group of people come together and say "sun rises from west" so be it for them.
To bin laden, bombing america is morally right. To Bush, bombing Iraq is morally right. To a financially poor hungry man stealing a loaf of bread is right.
Is the quest for imperial colonialism to enslave humans morally right.

Just because a little war is won, one does not start to write laws morality.
Basing morality on the outcome of WW2 is a sick joke that can satisfy only a few egos...yeah...yeah drink to your morality...or whatever

[Useless]

I'm a little thin on cobra behavior, but I suspect that their interaction is far less complex than human interaction, making such displays work in their case where they wouldn't work in ours.
I think it's not the matter of complexity and the difference can be easily explained. A human is virtually unable to inflict a fatal injury with bare hands, while one successful bite of cobra would kill. That's why fighting is moral for humans and immoral for cobras (and for most animals with lethal "weapons").

So, morality is a product of our evolution? Thats only very slightly different than my view. My view is that that evolution moves in a specific direction.
Yes, morality is a product of evolution, but evolution doesn't move in one specific direction. It moves in different directions in different species. Sometimes these directions converge, sometimes diverge. As for humans, I think they definitely have common morality, though with minor (in rare cases major) variations from person to person. And this morality has to be studied by science, certainly not by philosophy.

good first post
Thank you.

Concerning Hitler's morality. It doesn't matter was he right or wrong, what matters is your and other people's attitude. That's how morality works, it doesn't require any philosophical support. In fact, too much introspection can be harmful for one's morality.

And for my opinion morality is truly personal, but it is very similar in the vast majority of people.

[Kerrie]

I read the entire thread - although to be fair, I am reading Russ' posts more closely than others. I don't think the underlying question here (at least not as posed by Russ) is who or what determines a basic sense of morality, but rather whether or not there exists any basic sense of morality.

okay, i think i understand you better. not to bring this topic off subject, but is there a difference between ethics and morals that is often confused as one in the same? as a global community should we identify or "establish" ethics in how we conduct our major political actions (such as a valid reason for war) and leave the morality up the individual being that morals can and generally do tie into a religious set of beliefs?

[russ_watters]

I read the entire thread - although to be fair, I am reading Russ' posts more closely than others. I don't think the underlying question here (at least not as posed by Russ) is who or what determines a basic sense of morality, but rather whether or not there exists any basic sense of morality. [emphasis added]

The contradiction Russ is seeing here, and the contradiction I am seeing as well, is that from a relativistic standpoint, any system of morality is as valid as any other. For that reason, a relativist has no ground from which to make any moral judgement. In effect, a relativist cannot say that a human ought to be treated in any particular manner. He might say that he prefers to treat others a certain way, but he cannot generalize from that particular case to conclude that all humans ought to treat each other in the same manner. To do so would be to introduce an absolute moral standard, which would contradict the position of moral relativism. Yeeeeeees! For the discussion in this thread, I don't care why it exists, and I don't care what it looks like. I'm just trying to show that it does (must) exist.

I'm not interested in people's individual moral codes. In fact, I rather suspect they are all virtually identical (actually, that would be part of my point about them coalescing, but thats a secondary point). The issue here is whether those individual moral codes can or should be applied elsewhere (or everywhere).

The Hitler analogy works because it is a case where we all agree that if we personally were thrust into his shoes, we would have chosen to act differently. The question I am asking is why do we have to be in his shoes to make that judgement?

I'll reply to other specific posts later...

[dschouten]

Let me begin with this: it seems true that moral relativism is contradictory. It would seem fair, in light of many of the valid arguments heretofor presented, that we can accept this fact and move on (for argument's sake), without heeding the expected objections - which are rooted more in stubborn pride than reason.

However, this doesn't leave as its only alternative the view that has been espoused by russ_waters in previous posts to this forum. We can certainly accept a common human morality, but the applicability of morality to other "lifeforms" (spoken in true Star-Tekian fashion) is a dubious extension at best.

It has been contended, and I have expressed my adherence to this view earlier, that morality is an intrinsically human concept, developed by humans for the sole purpose of muting the effects of human ambition and selfishness. Morality is not simply relative; but neither does it find its foundation in some vague application of a universal law akin to gravity.

Thus it is neither universal (in the pure sense of the word) nor relative. Is this not the ultimate in fence-sitting raprochement? No. On the contrary, I would contend that we should never have approached morality with the same scientific mindset as we approach phenomana such as (I'm flogging a dead horse here) gravity, because we can affect morality - we can mess with it. It is part of us, and we of it; but not so with (again) gravity.

[Useless]

...morality is an intrinsically human concept, developed by humans for the sole purpose of muting the effects of human ambition and selfishness

If morality was (once) developed by humans, shouldn't we assume that before that moment there existed absolutely immoral people? But why immoral people would wish to invent morality? Were their lives too hard due to constant struggle with each other (Hobbesian society)? But so far we don't know any Hobbesian society and don't have evidences they existed in the past.

I think it's more productive to assume that morality is just one of the functions of the brain in no way connected to the ability of concept development. And all intellectual concepts of morality are just more or less (im)precise reflections of the natural moral feeling which I believe is not an exclusive human privilege.

[dschouten]

If morality was (once) developed by humans... Who said "once"? Not I.

[Useless]

Who said "once"? Not I.

I guess I misused and misunderstood some words. But anyway, if humans develop their morality for the purpose of muting the effects of human ambition and selfishness, does it mean that ancient societies in general are more ambitious and selfish than modern?

[dschouten]

I guess I misused and misunderstood some words. But anyway, if humans develop their morality for the purpose of muting the effects of human ambition and selfishness, does it mean that ancient societies in general are more ambitious and selfish than modern?
This assumes that the advancements we are all witnesses to coincide with human developments in morality. I don't know that this is true. A complete idiot who has no understanding of any modern technologies, who cannot read, write or perform any of the tasks we associate with advanced development, can definitely be a more moral person than the most refined contemporary intellectual.

So no, societies of antiquity need not be less moral.

[Les Sleeth]

But to put it simply, what is morally right is what works.

After reading all your posts in this thread, I finally decided I agree with your overall position. But I think you’ve said some contradictory things too which has confused some of us about your meaning, and I also think the discussion has people arguing several different points while believing they are talking about the same thing. So if you don’t mind, I want to attempt to sort things out a little and see where that leaves us.

I first questioned your position because of your comments about morality being universally “absolute.” At least three of your statements strongly suggest you are saying morality is actually part of the fabric existence. You said, “Morality is as absolute as the laws of physics, though just as difficult to figure out.” And then you said, “. . . the 'hard wiring' of morality (via evolution) into humans and spiders is further evidence to me of universal morality. Spiders are clearly 'lower' forms of life than humans. As such, their 'hard wired' morality is less evolved and less complete.” You also compared morality to the universal presence and “just is-ness” of gravity (which I said didn’t make sense to me if we have a choice about whether or not to be moral, because we don’t have a choice about obeying gravity).

In light of some of your other statements, I think Dschouten’s meaning of “universal” makes more sense, which is to say it applies to all the members of some defined set, in this case, humans. I’ll explain more why I think that is a better fit as I continue with my analysis below.

My next point is illustrated in your statement, “I find it unbelievable that a group of scientists can do such a thing as stop there. But I have found that most people who hold the position of moral relativism have done just that: stopped there and not considered the question any further.”

Okay. But when asked the basis of your “science” you go on to say, “What is the source of the laws governing gravity? God? They just are? I don't know . . . . I don't care why it exists, and I don't care what it [morality] looks like. I'm just trying to show that it does (must) exist.”

I’m having a problem reconciling those two statements. If you are going to make it a scientific hypothesis, you have to give us a way to observe instances of what you are asserting is true. In the case of morality being universal principle, force, influence . . . how are we to test it? You link it to evolution, for example, but you must know that evolution requires genetic components. Should scientists start looking for the morality genes? Of if it’s like gravity, should we look for some omnipresent force? You point to the hard-wiring of morality, and say it’s just less-evolved in, say, spiders. But I can’t recall a single act in the animal world I can label as some primal form of morality. Love possibly, but not “moral” behavior. Outside of what love and affection one might observe, the animal world is based on competition. There, might really does make right . . . the right to live. Humans are the only ones who’ve been able to consider if using might as the basis of determining right is really the best way to do it.

So we are back to the question of if the use of the term “universal” wouldn’t be more aptly applied to the “set” we call humanity (human consciousness actually). In other words, morality is a universal principle for humanity, mostly because less-evolved life forms aren’t conscious enough to even consider it.

Even with that, we haven’t escaped what is needed to make it science, which is the empirical aspect of observation. All you have offered so far are inductive arguments, which everyone agrees cannot be made to fit into the deductive avenue a legitimate scientific hypothesis requires. Of course, I think they are excellent inductive arguments, which is why I quoted your very pragmatism-oriented statement at the start of this thread.

I have more to say about that, but first let me finish up detailing why I think this discussion has been a bit chaotic. Another problem has been the debate about absolute and relative morality; and that is linked to what I see as the biggest problem, which is that we all aren’t agreed on what morality actually is. You can tell from how some people argue they think it is one thing, and how others argue in such a way you can tell they think morality is something else.

And you haven’t helped much in this regard either ( :wink: ). In addition to writing off morality as “it just is” and “I don’t care why or how,” you also said, “Maybe you'll consider this a cop out, but... Morality: ‘2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct.’ That's as good a definition as any I've seen . . ." I am afraid I will have to vote yes to cop out when you define morality with a dictionary. Dictionaries assist with the use of a word in language, it does not tell us anything about the philosophical meaning or implications of some idea.

What we need, if we are all going to discuss the same thing, is a clear and precise explanation (i.e., not just a definition) of morality. To say it is ideas about right and wrong says nothing. What does right and wrong mean?

I think by first explaining what it is, we also have a means to explain other concepts in relation to it, such as “relative morality.” So I offer this explanation:

Let’s take two situations. One is a man living in a tribe, and the other is man living as a hermit a few miles away. In the tribe, a man will be punished for disobeying tribal rules. What are the basis of the rules? In almost every case, it is when the man does something that either is, or is perceived as, harmful to the group. Jump to the hermit. The hermit can beat himself over the head with a club, eat monkey dung, stay drunk all day long, call himself dirty names, lie to himself, never bathe, steal from his own winter supplies, and even kill himself. As long as what he does is not threatening to the tribe miles away, no one is interested.

So, in the end, morality is simply a way we’ve come to describe an aspect of human interaction. If no one ever interacted with other humans, or were never affected by another’s actions, then morality would not exist. Is there a basis for universal or absolute principles (i.e., universal/absolute to the “set” of humanity)? I think so. If we define immorality as interfering with another’s efforts to survive and thrive, there is abundant evidence supporting that it is our “nature” to survive and thrive.

Where it gets interesting is with “thrive,” because it turns out human consciousness has some pretty evolved needs. The first mass production factories found out a human cannot adapt to just any conditions. It seems that to thrive (beyond physical needs), people need freedom, to be able to develop as an individual, and to feel content and happy. So morality extends to the ideal of not doing things that interfere with others’ pursuit of that. That’s why it isn’t only to kill or steal or rape that is immoral (survival issues), it is “immoral” to purposely make someone unhappy or fearful, or to oppress them (thrive issues).

To conclude the explanation for the basis of an “absolute” morality, I’m suggesting it is our own immutable nature we are drawing morals from Sort of like the best soil is one which grows the healthiest plants, morality “works” best when it supports and encourages our nature to endure and develop.

If we rely on that model of morality, then how is “relative” morality explained? I can see two sources for that. The first is like that man living alone in his cave. He might get addicted to beating himself over the head with a club, and so thinks it’s good (moral) to do that. Then he runs into other people who are addicted too, and they band together into a community. When they have kids, the kids learn to beat themselves with clubs, and that becomes the social norm. After a few decades, if someone doesn’t practice head beating they are ostracized, treated as immoral, and even stoned to death by angry crowds on occasion. In this case, moral and immoral have nothing to do with human nature surviving and thriving, but now has become transferred social surviving and thriving.

And maybe that tribe gets so powerful and influential, they develop a holy book detailing the morals of head beating. They come to believe they are ordained by God to make others obey their morals, and so go around preaching to everybody else that’s how God intended it to be. They think they have a right to interfere with someone’s personal life, possibly justifying it by imagining it is bad for society if everyone one isn’t doing it.

Thus, the so-called relative morals come about from personal preferences, and from social, religious, cultural, familial, etc. pressures.

So, I could agree with you about an absolute morality if we base it on human nature. And if that is to be what we call morality, then I don’t think there is even such a thing as “relative morality.” Instead that should be labeled personal preferences and pressures from groups to conform to group beliefs, or something similar.

[loseyourname]

But I can’t recall a single act in the animal world I can label as some primal form of morality. Love possibly, but not “moral” behavior. Outside of what love and affection one might observe, the animal world is based on competition.

I'll read the rest of your post soon, but for now, I just want to respond to this part. Pre-moral sentiments have been found in other animals, in particularly cooperation and justice. Here's an excerpt from The Science of Good and Evil, by Michael Shermer, the editor of Skeptic Magazine:

Examples of pre-moral sentiments among animals abound. Vampire bats share food and follow the principal of reciprocity. They go out at night in hoards seeking large sleeping mammals from which they can suck blood. Not all are successful, yet all need to eat regularly because of their excessively high metabolism. On average, older experienced bats fail one night in ten, younger inexperienced bats fail one night in three. Their solution is that successful hunters regurgitate blood and share it with their less fortunate comrades, fully expecting reciprocity the next time they come home sans bacon. Of course, the bats are not aware they are being cooperative in any conscious sense. All animals, including human animals, are just trying to survive, and it turns out that cooperation is a good strategy.

Really, the best examples of pre-moral sentiments are found in other hominid primates. It is clear from observations of their behavior that if something is stolen from them, they feel wronged. They do have some rudimentary sense of justice. Anyway, I encourage you to look into this yourself. It is off-topic and not pertinent to this thread.

[Useless]

This assumes that the advancements we are all witnesses to coincide with human developments in morality.


Excuse my persistence, but what do you mean by "developments in morality"? It seems to me that humans remain the same, their morality neither develops nor degrades. Human concepts of morality definitely become more and more elaborated, but this seemingly doesn't affect human behavior. I think looking at the history of mankind one cannot make a conclusion that humans become less ambitious and selfish.

[dschouten]

Excuse my persistence, but what do you mean by "developments in morality"? It seems to me that humans remain the same, their morality neither develops nor degrades. Human concepts of morality definitely become more and more elaborated, but this seemingly doesn't affect human behavior. I think looking at the history of mankind one cannot make a conclusion that humans become less ambitious and selfish.
I would agree with you on this one. I have spoken imprecisely. When speaking of developed morality, I mean to say that morality is not genetic - its not hardwired. That's not to say that morality is developing per se, but that it isn't just the next mutation for an ape.

[Les Sleeth]

I'll read the rest of your post soon, but for now, I just want to respond to this part. Pre-moral sentiments have been found in other animals, in particularly cooperation and justice.

I am familiar with and enjoy Shermer's thinking. If we believe some feeling is behind our moral code, then I suppose animals might be able to experience that. I've been very impressed, for instance, with the care and sharing observed among elephants. Of course, that isn't morality, which I still don't believe is exhibited anywhere except with humans.

[loseyourname]

When you look at hominid primates, though, it really seems that they do live by a certain moral code. They not only appear to feel wronged when the code is violated, but they even punish the violators until they apologize.

[Useless]

That's not to say that morality is developing per se, but that it isn't just the next mutation for an ape.


I see. Personally I'm now under impression of Pinker's "Language Instinct". And it seems tempting to apply the same methodology to the morality. According to Chomsky's theory language abilities are hardwired, that's why all languages are intrinsically the same, no one of them is superior to another, and language has not to be taught – it just emerges during child development (it's all very similar to characteristics of morality).

Maybe like a language module there exists a moral module in the brain? It would explain universality and invariability of human morality and why certain brain injuries make people behave immorally.

[selfAdjoint]

Our cousins the chimps are capable of tactics and trickery, as are even our much more distant relatives the baboons. Perhaps we should look for the evolution of morality to the growing awareness and future direction of hominids who already have these sneaky pete capabilities and now have to evaluate and model them in their minds.

[russ_watters]

...but the applicability of morality to other "lifeforms" (spoken in true Star-Tekian fashion) is a dubious extension at best. I'll certainly grant you that. That one is largely a product of my mind, by which I mean I've never read a paper on it or anything. Agree or disagree though, I think its something that there is some evidence for and something to consider. It has been contended, and I have expressed my adherence to this view earlier, that morality is an intrinsically human concept, developed by humans for the sole purpose of muting the effects of human ambition and selfishness. Morality is not simply relative; but neither does it find its foundation in some vague application of a universal law akin to gravity. My point regarding other species was that I think intelligent beings will come to the same conclusions about morality. Since there are no other species with human intelligence (that we know of), I started to apply that to lower species, and thats where I got my ideas on morality manifesting more the more intelligent a being was. To me though, that implies universal law. Lemme ask you this: is the law of supply and demand a universal law? Its not physics, and economics is a human invention (or is it?), but I would expect any intelligent being that starts to use money will come to the same conclusion about supply and demand. That, to me, makes it a universal law. Math: Plus, minus, times. None of these have a physical manifestation in the universe (though, they are used to describe how the universe works), yet we encoded them into a message meant for aliens. How can we be sure math is a 'universal language'? Isn't it just a human construct that functions only as a tool to help humans understand the natural world? Thus it is neither universal (in the pure sense of the word) nor relative. Is this not the ultimate in fence-sitting raprochement? No. On the contrary, I would contend that we should never have approached morality with the same scientific mindset as we approach phenomana such as (I'm flogging a dead horse here) gravity, because we can affect morality - we can mess with it. It is part of us, and we of it; but not so with (again) gravity. How can we "mess with it"? If morality was (once) developed by humans, shouldn't we assume that before that moment there existed absolutely immoral people? But why immoral people would wish to invent morality? Were their lives too hard due to constant struggle with each other (Hobbesian society)? But so far we don't know any Hobbesian society and don't have evidences they existed in the past. Hobbes' work was outstanding, but I don't think his "state of nature" ever even existed in nature. There is too much organization. After reading all your posts in this thread, I finally decided I agree with your overall position. But I think you’ve said some contradictory things too which has confused some of us about your meaning, and I also think the discussion has people arguing several different points while believing they are talking about the same thing. Maybe - I'm trying to be precise, but I can sometimes be sloppy. Especially when talking with 8 people at once. I really do think part of it is that these things seem contradicotry to others because they think about them in different ways. Kinda like Relativity.In light of some of your other statements, I think Dschouten’s meaning of “universal” makes more sense, which is to say it applies to all the members of some defined set, in this case, humans. I’ll explain more why I think that is a better fit as I continue with my analysis below. As I said above, thats fine - thats largely a product of my mind and the extension of morality to other species doesn't matter all that much in practical terms anyway. I do think my position on that is justified - if somewhat underdeveloped. My next point is illustrated in your statement, “I find it unbelievable that a group of scientists can do such a thing as stop there. But I have found that most people who hold the position of moral relativism have done just that: stopped there and not considered the question any further.”

Okay. But when asked the basis of your “science” you go on to say, “What is the source of the laws governing gravity? God? They just are? I don't know . . . . I don't care why it exists, and I don't care what it [morality] looks like. I'm just trying to show that it does (must) exist.”

I’m having a problem reconciling those two statements. Those two statements are not talking about the same thing. We investigate gravity to figure out how it works. We don't stop at Einstein's theory even though it works extremely well because there are unanswered questions on the mechanism . But what scientists don't do is ask "who or what created it?" In the case of morality being universal principle, force, influence . . . how are we to test it? I've only barely touched on this - its an important question and part of why its so hard for people to accept a scientific approach. The testing is in the application. I said Hitler's morality (if any) was wrong because it didn't work. By that I mean he applied it to his country and tried to apply it to the world (I guess he was an absolutist ;) ) and it failed. He lost WWII. Beyond that, it had structural and logical problems - he had to lie to make people follow it. Thats evidence of flaws.

Now, Hitler's rule lasted what, 20 years? The USSR took 80 years or so to collapse under its own weight. Thats a long time to wait for test results, and the results aren't always unequivocal. The US has been going for 200+ years. So far, our little experiment (its been called that) appears to be working. But at some point, I expect we will fail as well. You point to the hard-wiring of morality, and say it’s just less-evolved in, say, spiders. But I can’t recall a single act in the animal world I can label as some primal form of morality. Love possibly, but not “moral” behavior. Outside of what love and affection one might observe, the animal world is based on competition. There, might really does make right . . . the right to live. Look at intraspecies behavior. You seem to be thinking preditor vs prey. Look at how animals treat their young (why even bother feeding your offspring?) and how they interact with others of the same species (and their mates). Higher level primates have highly complex community organization and behavior.Humans are the only ones who’ve been able to consider if using might as the basis of determining right is really the best way to do it. Yes, and as I said in the vegan thread, that is what separates us from them: our actions are not bound to our genetic programming as theirs are. We've grown beyond that. But here's a question - do you have to think about an action for it to be moral/immoral? So we are back to the question of if the use of the term “universal” wouldn’t be more aptly applied to the “set” we call humanity (human consciousness actually). In other words, morality is a universal principle for humanity, mostly because less-evolved life forms aren’t conscious enough to even consider it. Basically, they can't think about it so it doesn't apply to them - that's more or less what I said except for the caveat above (and the behavioral complexity thing)... That's why I think you can apply it to instinctive behavior.Even with that, we haven’t escaped what is needed to make it science, which is the empirical aspect of observation. Yes, that is why its so tough to treat it scientifically. What makes it worse is that the observations themselves are subject to interpretation.

Re: defining morality. I have a problem with your hermit. If he insists on beating himself over the head, he'll eventually get brain damage and die. Does that make a positive contribution to his 'surviving and thriving?' As I first learned in the Boy Scouts, your first moral obligation is to yourself. Sort of like the best soil is one which grows the healthiest plants, morality “works” best when it supports and encourages our nature to endure and develop. I like it. What we need, if we are all going to discuss the same thing, is a clear and precise explanation (i.e., not just a definition) of morality. To say it is ideas about right and wrong says nothing. What does right and wrong mean? I'm gonna have to nitpick and defend myself here - now your asking for the specifics of a system of morality. That is a different question than asking what morality in general is. 'What is a theory?' is different than 'what is the theory of gravity?' I like your particular system - your particular moral theory (code). But that has nothing at all to do with the definition of "morality."

The reason I didn't want to talk about specific moral codes is because then the argument becomes 'whose moral theory is right?' when all I'm really interested in is what is morality and is there a universal one. I use Hitler as the example because he's the default evil. If we use abortion as the example, then the focus is on abortion and not the overall concept "what is morality?" (though the pro-choice position is interpreted by some as relativism)

Your "best soil" morality bridges the gap though. It both defines morality by telling us what a good theory should accomplish and works as a basis for figuring out/describing that theory.

[russ_watters]

Something I've forgotten before: the main reason I avoid the question of where the laws come from is I want to avoid making this a discussion on religion. Morality is tough enough without clouding it by removing all logic and reason. Whether ordained by God or just "is", gravity works the same - and so does morality.

continuing: okay, i think i understand you better. not to bring this topic off subject, but is there a difference between ethics and morals that is often confused as one in the same? as a global community should we identify or "establish" ethics in how we conduct our major political actions (such as a valid reason for war) and leave the morality up the individual being that morals can and generally do tie into a religious set of beliefs? Ethics and morals are pretty much the same thing - ethics is the moral code or the study of the moral code. Definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ethics).

The problem with separating individual with group morality is that individuals are members of groups, thus the ethics/morality of the group is a reflection (composite) of the ethics/morality of the individuals. And some groups, countries in particular, have a single individual speaking for them. ...what happens when there becomes one source (the UN as an example) for setting these principles for the entire world? you could have totalitarianism eventually~ You could. And thats a danger that exists in both relativism and absolutism - its the key issue in building a government and the key issue the U.S. dealt with in setting up ours. The best we can do is set up a government that makes that tougher. But dictators want to be dictators - its a component of their personality/morality and they will try if given the opportunity. in the evolution of human society, perhaps those who challenge certain principles (certainly not all) bring about growth in humanity? remember growth is sometimes a painful process. america (in general) has this ideal of a peaceful world where we all hold hands and love one another, thus why our nation intervenes in other countries conflicts. why? i suppose the intentions to keep peace are good (unless there are special interests in getting involved), but it ends up that our own people die needlessly because of our interference. truly, i don't see any real benefit to that ultimately when our intention is to bring about one viewpoint of "morality". I agree with all of that. In fact, if we are to start transposing human morality to the animal realm we quickly run into arbitrary boundaries: is a sea urchin bound by moral law? If so, then why not also a rock? If not, then where does the boundary lay (exactly)? A rock doesn't have actions - it doesn't do anything on its own. A sea urchin, iirc, is a predator (so are some plants, btw).... However, the understanding of morality is tied with its application: one would never accuse a mentally-deficient person of 'badness' to the same extent as a competent person (in fact, this argument itself reeks of moral discernment). I would say that even if a mentally retarded person doesn't know killing another person for no reason is wrong, its still wrong if they do it. What differs is whether or not they can be held accountable for their actions. If they can't understand them, they aren't held as accountable - but the actions could still be wrong. Sure. You are otherwise at completely opposite ends of the morality spectrum, yet somehow you managed to agree on this. You claim that an agreement by 2 people in an extremely similar cultural context is proof of a universal moral code. How can you be serious? Opposite ends of the morality spectrum? Our only disagreement is on whether morality is universally applicable. The specifics of our moral codes are likely virtually identical. If I took a poll on how many people think murder is wrong, would everyone say yes? Stealing? Adultury? Child abuse? There would be a lot of agreement on these issues (and a lot of others) across cultural boundaries. The only disagreement is to whether or not I'm justified in telling someone else that its wrong and punishing them for doing it.

A cannibal on an isolated Pacific island might think that cannibalism is ok, but I submit that the reason he's still wearing a loincloth and hunting with a spear is his morality is preventing him from progressing beyond that.

This one's going to be unpopular: China was culturally and technologically more advanced/developed than Europe and had a denser population for thousands of years. Why then, did the industrial revolution start there? Why did it start in England, a relatively backwards, sparsely populated (compared to China) country? I submit that eastern morality has flaws that prevented further growth. This is also presumptuous. How can you presume that if pressed we would all agree with you on the morality of Hitler, when we clearly do not agree with you on the context of your words or their application. Yes or no: if you were placed in Hitler's shoes in 1935, would you have executed the plans he had in place? We do not have a duty to stop him because of your[emphasis added] definition of morality. ?? My moral code states that if you consort with someone who is acting immorally and you do nothing to change it, you are being immoral. Maybe your code doesn't say that, but mine does. And recall: "never again." The UN charter contains that piece of my moral code. I assume that you are losing it under the pressure of widespread lack of acceptance of your definition of absolute morality. Therefore, I will forgive this ridiculous claim. It is somewhat circular/tautological: do people reject the Moral Imperative because of guilt that they aren't following it or do they have guilt therefore they start following the Moral Imperative. I honestly don't know which. I'm just speculating. If morality is absolute, yet you claim that no one achieves this absolute, then are you not presumptious in taking action to enforce your admittedly clearly imperfect understanding of morality? Not at all. No scientist ever thinks he has the "Final Theoy," yet that doesn't stop them from saying previous theories are wrong. I don't have to know everything to know some people know less than me.Do you not feel guilty for imposing your morality on Hitler, when you clearly cannot have any degree of certainty that your morality is superior to his, as you admittedly do not know the perfection of absolute morality. If placed in his shoes in 1935, my actions would have resulted in roughtly 100 million less deaths than his. No, I don't think its at all presumptuous to say my morality is better than his and it doesn't make me feel guilty to say it. You claim that you are on the right track to the perfection of morality. On what basis do you make this claim? This is starting to get redundant. Like I said several times before: mine works (so far) and his didn't. How can you claim to known that you are on the right track, when you claim that your undertanding is imperfect? The same way any scientists knows that: the evidence shows the theory works. To claim that there is an aboslute good in the world, and that you know better than others at approximating it is quite a claim. Well here's the thing: others tend to agree with me on the specifics of the code. Billions of people are living by a very, very similar code to mine - and virtually everyone in the world, by way of the UN Charter, is subject to a very, very similar code. All I'm saying is that the universally (to humans) applied morality in the UN Charter isn't just there for reasons of practicality. Its not just a functional absolute: its a real absolute. Thats not that big of a claim. Are you religious, and is this a religious argument? Reasonable question - often discussions like this are shrouded religious arguments. I was raised Presbyterian (protestant). Today, I go to church on holidays and when my mother has a band concert. I have serious issues with organized religion, but still (barely) consider myself christian. Being that I was raised Presbyterian, a lot of my moral code can be found in the religion. But I've grown considerably beyond that and I do really believe that you can figure out the moral code without having it handed to you by religion. In fact, I think those who do figure it out on their own are better off than those who just plain accept it because their parents told them to. No, this is not a religious argument. You judge good and evil from your own perspective, just as everyone else does, you claim that your opinion is somehow superior to others because it belongs to you, just as everyone else does, yet you claim that yours is better in a universal, absolute sense, which is a step beyond what most people do, outside of the context of religious arguments, in my experience. Now wait a minute - as I said before, I'm specifically trying to avoid going into the specifics of my moral code. I won't discuss terrorism, abortion, Robin-Hoodism, drugs, or any of the other controversial moral issues we see around us today. I am not judging myself to be better than anyone else here (except the default evil, of course - Hitler). All I'm saying is that there is one code, applicable universally.

Your tone is slightly agressive and unnecessary - I am not judging your morality. I don't even know what it is.

[russ_watters]

This may require expansion: If morality is absolute, yet you claim that no one achieves this absolute, then are you not presumptious in taking action to enforce your admittedly clearly imperfect understanding of morality?
Not at all. No scientist ever thinks he has the "Final Theoy," yet that doesn't stop them from saying previous theories are wrong. I don't have to know everything to know some people know less than me. There certainly are cases where right and wrong are not clear. Abortion is one of them (to me). For that reason, I'm pro choice. Pro choice means I'll leave it up to each individual and their personal moral code. (please don't turn this into an argument over abortion) My moral code says you can't have an abortion after the 2nd trimester. But I'm not conviced that that's right - so I am for letting others decide for themselves. But here's the catch: some people are convinced that abortion after conception is wrong. To them, the Moral Imperative requires them to seek to make abortion illegal.

Anyway, the Hitler example is used because it is a case that is clear.

[Les Sleeth]

Your "best soil" morality bridges the gap though. It both defines morality by telling us what a good theory should accomplish and works as a basis for figuring out/describing that theory.

I have to admit morality isn't one of my interests. I got interested in your ideas about it being universal (and therefore metaphysical). My personal approach to being "good" is to learn to feel it, and be less self-centered. I find it more simple and natural to just be sincere, because with that I am naturally better in all the ways people call "moral," and so don't have to bother about all the complexities involved in deciding the proper morality.

I quoted you above because I wonder if you've read Charles Peirce? That, like your earlier statement about deciding morality by "what works," is pure pragmatism, my all-time favorite philosophy (outside of my own :tongue2:). Pragmatism is the only classic-type philosophy America can lay claim to as exclusively ours. One of Peirce's goals with pragmatism was to see if he could help move the typically rationalistic approach taken in philosophy toward being more empirical -- he called for a "scientific metaphysics." Anyway, he proposed that in action, the veracity of an idea can be tested. It's been awhile since I read him, but I've boiled down what I understood to simply "what works."

That idea isn't as simple to apply as it might first seem because often something appears to work in the short term, but down the road (and the "road" might involve centuries) proves itself not to work overall.

[Prometheus]

This one's going to be unpopular: China was culturally and technologically more advanced/developed than Europe and had a denser population for thousands of years. Why then, did the industrial revolution start there? Why did it start in England, a relatively backwards, sparsely populated (compared to China) country? I submit that eastern morality has flaws that prevented further growth.

I think that I understand now. The Chinese are culturally flawed. That is why they did not lead the world into the industrial revolution. They cannot claim that the devastating invasions over the great wall that dominated China for most of the past 1,000 years (every dynasty but the Ming came over the great wall) is a mitigating excuse, because this is merely further evidence that the northern invaders were morally advanced.

I have a question. Would you say that Genghis Khan was one of the most moral men who ever lived? After all, no individual person who ever lived did more for his people, and no individual ever left a greater legacy of power and influence for his descendents.


Our only disagreement is on whether morality is universally applicable. The specifics of our moral codes are likely virtually identical. If I took a poll on how many people think murder is wrong, would everyone say yes?

This question is highly biased. Murder is wrong by definition in this country. If you were to ask how many people think that killing is wrong, I suspect that almost no one would agree. Most people in the world think that killing is not wrong, except under certain circumstances. The United States has more than 100,000 people in Iraq now who are engaged in killing, and I suspect that a poll a year ago would have showed that most people considered it good.


A cannibal on an isolated Pacific island might think that cannibalism is ok, but I submit that the reason he's still wearing a loincloth and hunting with a spear is his morality is preventing him from progressing beyond that.

This brings me back to my original point. I cannot come close to agreeing with your viewpoint on morality, because I cannot come close to understanding what you mean by morality. When you suggest that a small number of individuals on an isolated, low in natural resources, no opportunity for egaging in trade with other cultures, no cross cultural opportunity island should progress culturally at the same rate at a large number of people in areas where there is great cultural cross pollination, significant natural resources, and constant trade is due to their low level of morality, then I have to wonder what this term does for you. Of all of the words that I might think to use in this context, the word morality is not one of them.

Given the usage of the word morality that you are promoting, I think that I had best drop the word. I find no value in it, yet it is very confusing because it sounds so much like another word that I use with the same pronounciation and spelling.

[Dayle Record]

I just wanted to say that this is one of the more succint statements, I have read, regarding war, of late.

It is my opinion that "morality", is a means by which a group of people protect their interests. Morality is imposed in order to protect property, or chattel, or a social system that works for the group. Things change, and moralities change as well. The concept of higher power dictating morality with earthly enforcers providing the muscle, is as old as the needs of the first special interest group, probably more like a special interest pair really, or perhaps a special interest pear. Since the offerings to gods and spirits tended in the beginning to be consumables, it stands to reason that the first moral dictates had to do with food sharing. Once humans figured out reproduction, then the morals regarding feminine virginity and paternity came about.

Morality seems to be mostly about the business of survival, and accounting. Truly big businesses have for centuries, played on religious sympathies, in order to create controllable systems of economic domination. Morals shift, depending on who has the biggest stick. While slavery was so profitable, it was immoral to consort with slaves in such a way that they may ideate equality. Currently there is a moral rationalization for bigotry, that is called the Protection Of Marriage, by disallowing marriage between same sex couples. It used to be immoral for mixed race couples to marry. Eventually with the help of humanists, and libertarians, control agendas, disguised as moral agendas, do fall away.

The stark punishing morality of fundamentalists of every ilk is amost always a knee-jerk reaction to profoundly abusive social systems. People only blow themselves to bits if they have really never been cared for, and have been subjected to twisted social stress. When an Imam poses as the first person who counts, that has ever cared for a young man, and then asks the young man to self destruct, the joy of the love that the boy feels, is so great that he is happy to die in that frame of mind. For a few days or hours, or months he is a hero, beloved. The moral Imam, who feels really moral in his holy war against a great evil, gets to have absolute power in his morality; and gets to be a proxy executioner, for all involved.

In the state of Utah, there are some 40,000 polygamists. The highly fundamental sects, dress like the nineteenth century, and take girls to wife at puberty. It is the moral obligation of these twelve to sixteen year old girls, to find their middle aged, arranged husbands, to be sexually attractive, and provide a child a year, for the duration of their ability to do so.

I just don't think that society can be governed by morality, it is just too loose of a term. Morality, is never applied where it really counts, to serve the needs of the planet as a whole. What would a planetary morality be? If we aren't careful it is going to be what makes the most money for a few powerful corporations, who also run the public access to the "morality play", they use to rationalize this system.

[Les Sleeth]

Re: defining morality. I have a problem with your hermit. If he insists on beating himself over the head, he'll eventually get brain damage and die. Does that make a positive contribution to his 'surviving and thriving?' As I first learned in the Boy Scouts, your first moral obligation is to yourself.

That statement there is what I don't like about morality, and it is something that can be tested by pragmatism too (which I why I posted it second). A major source of trouble we've had trying to encourage morality is others interfering in areas that are personal. I do not not believe morality will ever "work" if the individual who does no harm to others or to shared environments, isn't left to live his life as he pleases. The minute we start making anything personal a moral issue, and that includes things as extreme as self-destructive behavior, sexual perversity and suicide, it's going to cause resistance to the entire concept of morality.*

I think we should try to help people who are harming themselves, but do it without framing it as immoral since usually they are doing such things because they already believe they don't deserve better. So in the end, accusing someone doing no harm to others of being immoral might just reinforce his negative view of himself and make him even more self-destructive. In that case, the moralizer has harmed another and so become what he is preaching against.

*I would add, with this concept, a person can decide his non-harming-to-others behavior is immoral himself . . . it's just that other aren't allowed to label it that.

[dschouten]

Les Sleuth is correct when (s)he (gender unknown to me) states that the moralizer bears the burden of ensuring that the object of his/her preaching is not further debased by that preaching.

However much this is true, it should be realized that, more often than not, the extent of the foundation for these preachers' morality is not the limited scope presented in this forum, but an even more foundational institution: religion. If you are to accept that God created the universe, and that God decrees certain standards of living, it would only seem completely natural for these "moralizers" to preach the divine decrees even in areas of personal freedom. "Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial", and if the preachers believe something now permissible to be detrimental, preaching against it is the only moral thing to do.

Besides, Mill's perspective - that in areas of purely individual concern each person is to be granted total autonomy - is in my view flawed in its very premise: there are no areas of purely individual concern. Consider, if one member of society corrupts him or herself, then society is itself corrupted. A healthy society is a society comprised of healthy individuals, and health here is not used in the purely physical sense.

[russ_watters]

Besides, Mill's perspective - that in areas of purely individual concern each person is to be granted total autonomy - is in my view flawed in its very premise: there are no areas of purely individual concern. [emphasis added] Consider, if one member of society corrupts him or herself, then society is itself corrupted. A healthy society is a society comprised of healthy individuals, and health here is not used in the purely physical sense. That's my view as well. In any case, it is an unpopular view. Thats kinda strange to me though, because in the U.S., we're moving toward providing more aid to individuals (universal healthcare) while requiring less accountability for their actions (drug legalization). It seems bass ackwards to me. It is my opinion that "morality", is a means by which a group of people protect their interests. Morality is imposed in order to protect property, or chattel, or a social system that works for the group. Things change, [emphasis added] and moralities change as well. What changes? IMO, its the figuring out of morality and applying it to political theory that has enabled the rise of modern civilization. Hobbes and Locke are a biggie. For the simpler aspects of morality though, I think its easy to see that they have always been true. Murder is always wrong, for example (by definition, as someone else pointed out, but I mean the actions we call murder don't change much). In the state of Utah, there are some 40,000 polygamists. The highly fundamental sects, dress like the nineteenth century, and take girls to wife at puberty. It is the moral obligation of these twelve to sixteen year old girls, to find their middle aged, arranged husbands, to be sexually attractive, and provide a child a year, for the duration of their ability to do so. I had no idea that still went on. My boss is Mormon (though not funamentalist).I just don't think that society can be governed by morality, it is just too loose of a term. Morality, is never applied where it really counts, to serve the needs of the planet as a whole. What would a planetary morality be? I think the UN charter is a good start - we just need to make good on the promises it contains.

[russ_watters]

I think that I understand now. The Chinese are culturally flawed. I told you it would be unpopular. Would it make you feel better to know I believe every culture contains flaws?

One of the things I consider great about the US its built-in capability for correcting such flaws through Constitutional Amendments. Its part of the reason the US currently has the oldest government in the world - something people often overlook.
This question is highly biased. Murder is wrong by definition in this country. If you were to ask how many people think that killing is wrong, I suspect that almost no one would agree. 'Is killing wrong?' is a poorly defined question. Yes, murder is wrong by definition, but the legal definition contains very specific criteria for actions that can be called murder. The question would have to be worded in such a way as to be a description of a specific action, not just by using the word "murder." When you suggest that a small number of individuals on an isolated, low in natural resources, no opportunity for egaging in trade with other cultures, no cross cultural opportunity island should progress culturally at the same rate at a large number of people in areas where there is great cultural cross pollination, significant natural resources, and constant trade is due to their low level of morality, then I have to wonder what this term does for you. Of all of the words that I might think to use in this context, the word morality is not one of them. I think it is due in part to the cultural differences including morality, but clearly its more complicated than that. But I don't think its a coincidence that the countries that employ the most modern political theories (a reflection of their moral code) are the ones that are the most successful. There are examples everywhere of countries with underdeveloped moralities that are holding them back. Countries that subjugate women, for example.

[Les Sleeth]

Les Sleuth . . . (s)he (gender unknown to me)

If you click on my name in any post you'll see my profile where there are a couple of clues about my gender :smile:.


However much this is true, it should be realized that, more often than not, the extent of the foundation for these preachers' morality is not the limited scope presented in this forum, but an even more foundational institution: religion. If you are to accept that God created the universe, and that God decrees certain standards of living, it would only seem completely natural for these "moralizers" to preach the divine decrees even in areas of personal freedom. "Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial", and if the preachers believe something now permissible to be detrimental, preaching against it is the only moral thing to do.

I understand why the religious preach morals, but that doesn't mean they are serving the best interests of humanity to do so. I also think it's "natural" for a man to preach domination over others (given our hormones and evolutionary history), or for a communist to preach materialism, etc.

Also, I don't accept that God decrees certain standards of living. As far as I can tell, religous morality stems from men speaking for God, and that arrogance is another reason why morality preachers turn a lot of people off.

You might surmise I've had some contact with preachers, and you'd be right. I was raised in a fundamentalist family, and exposed to copius amounts of moralizing by some of the biggest hypocrites I've ever encountered. Now, among those religious was a very old woman who stood out as an exception to me. She didn't preach morality, but instead exhibited love. We had a talk when I was 11 years old after I decided I was going to hell because there was no way I could live up to all the commandments. Sher impressed me when she said, "if you live in the experience of love and sincerity, then you don't have to worry about the commandments . . . love and sincerity will make you perfect."

Today I look at people who preach morality, and mostly what I see are religious "behaviorists." They want to "behave" correctly, but too often without the heart of it present -- love and sincerity.


Besides, Mill's perspective - that in areas of purely individual concern each person is to be granted total autonomy - is in my view flawed in its very premise: there are no areas of purely individual concern. Consider, if one member of society corrupts him or herself, then society is itself corrupted. A healthy society is a society comprised of healthy individuals, and health here is not used in the purely physical sense.

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean people have the right to dictate personal morality to others, and it also doesn't mean that preaching it is going to do anything other than cause people to turn a deaf ear.

In my former professional life I used to work in a field called organization development. In team building (say with a manger and his/her team) we would, as expected, work on techniques which helped team members coordinate their actions. However, to create a strong team, even more important than learning the skills of teamwork was to get members voluntarily committed and even enthusiastic about team efforts. How is that done?

Well, you can't preach the "needs" of the team or the "rights" of the team, and get genuine, heartfelt commitment. The only way (except in emergency situations) to get true commitment is when participation in the team satisfies individual needs. People are not motivated long by "shoulds" or "should nots" or guilt or even high ideals if working toward them doesn't pay off with personal satisfaction fairly soon.

Consider another example. The question posed for this thread was if the morally right are most often victors in war. If we consider the trend of all of history, then at this point the answer is yes. But a big part of the reason we have cooperated with other countries, fought so hard, and believed so deeply in our cause (all of which we did better than our enemies) is because of how much we didn't want to return to the conditions of earlier times. In those times, it was the individual who was oppressed. If you compare life under any of the conquerors, dictators, etc., it was individual needs which were sacrificed for the goals of those in power. This is why communism does not and will never work. It is a system which doesn't understand the importance of satisfying individual psychological needs.

It might sound like I am agreeing with your statement, "A healthy society is a society comprised of healthy individuals." I do as an overall principle; what I disagree with is that morality is the way to psychological health. Moral philosophizing and mere behavior doesn't satisfy very deeply, and therefore will never (in my opinion) "work" to create a healthy society. Rather, it is when a person has opportunities to participate in self-empowering and beneficial activities that goodness is experienced, enjoyed, and which then entices a person back for more.

[Useless]

But I don't think its a coincidence that the countries that employ the most modern political theories (a reflection of their moral code) are the ones that are the most successful.

Don't you think it's a circularity?

Q: Whose political theories are the most modern?
A: Of the most successful countries, of course.

[dschouten]

Also, I don't accept that God decrees certain standards of living. As far as I can tell, religous morality stems from men speaking for God, and that arrogance is another reason why morality preachers turn a lot of people off.
I often hear such arguments. If God decreed moral standards, and you said "I don't accept that you decree certain standards of living", you would have effected no change in the matter. Nonetheless, I shall leave it to the reader to determine the validity of this premise.


You might surmise I've had some contact with preachers, and you'd be right. I was raised in a fundamentalist family, and exposed to copius amounts of moralizing by some of the biggest hypocrites I've ever encountered. Now, among those religious was a very old woman who stood out as an exception to me. She didn't preach morality, but instead exhibited love. We had a talk when I was 11 years old after I decided I was going to hell because there was no way I could live up to all the commandments. Sher impressed me when she said, "if you live in the experience of love and sincerity, then you don't have to worry about the commandments . . . love and sincerity will make you perfect."

But this is a moral statement! Why should anyone be "loving and sincere"? Why not a selfish, arrogant prick?


Today I look at people who preach morality, and mostly what I see are religious "behaviorists." They want to "behave" correctly, but too often without the heart of it present -- love and sincerity.

Good for them. I am not concerned here with the nature of the application, but rather with the understanding of the basic construction.


Maybe so, but that doesn't mean people have the right to dictate personal morality to others, and it also doesn't mean that preaching it is going to do anything other than cause people to turn a deaf ear.

If the perspective is true that the personal affairs of oneself is an empty set, then the right of people to dictate morality is moot. Their exists no right to do so, but neither is there a directive against doing so.

[Les Sleeth]

I often hear such arguments. If God decreed moral standards, and you said "I don't accept that you decree certain standards of living", you would have effected no change in the matter. Nonetheless, I shall leave it to the reader to determine the validity of this premise.

It is not an "argument" to me because I haven't experienced anything to argue against. I look at reality, and I don't see any decrees from God. I only see decrees from men, some of whom claim they are speaking for God. Are you saying it is evident that God decreed morality? If so, I'd love to see you make that case (with evidence).


But this is a moral statement! Why should anyone be "loving and sincere"? Why not a selfish, arrogant prick?

If you think her's was a moral statement, then you and I are on two different planets. I am distinguishing between behavioral prescriptions, and feeling something. Surely you can see the difference. A robot can be programmed to behave in a loving way without ever actually experiencing love. I know marriages like that, with all the politeness and expressions of affection, yet very little heart behind the behavior. Maybe you would be satisfied with your wife merely behaving in a loving way, but I want mine to feel it or I'm not interested. The same is true for so-called morality. I would choose a sincere person any day for a friend over the person trying to "behave" morally.


Good for them. I am not concerned here with the nature of the application, but rather with the understanding of the basic construction.

Well, as a moralist, your position makes perfect sense. Here's my impression of moralists. They are stiff. They can be cold-hearted or mean-spirited, even if perfectly "behaved." They are self-righteous. They are preachy. They often find ways to morally justify improper actions.

My experience has been it is often those who are most afraid to trust their heart who preach morals most passionately.

[dschouten]

It is not an "argument" to me because I haven't experienced anything to argue against. I look at reality, and I don't see any decrees from God. I only see decrees from men, some of whom claim they are speaking for God. Are you saying it is evident that God decreed morality? If so, I'd love to see you make that case (with evidence).
Yours is very much an argumentative response. It is precisely the response given to the statement in my previous post concerning the possible reasons for enforcing moral codification (namely, the religious foundations of morality). To say that "I don't accept religious foundations of morality" is to present a de facto argument.

Can I prove that God decreed morality? Not in this forum (cop-out noted).



If you think her's was a moral statement, then you and I are on two different planets. I am distinguishing between behavioral prescriptions, and feeling something. Surely you can see the difference. A robot can be programmed to behave in a loving way without ever actually experiencing love. I know marriages like that, with all the politeness and expressions of affection, yet very little heart behind the behavior. Maybe you would be satisfied with your wife merely behaving in a loving way, but I want mine to feel it or I'm not interested. The same is true for so-called morality. I would choose a sincere person any day for a friend over the person trying to "behave" morally.

Well, as a moralist, your position makes perfect sense.
Oh, give me a break; your self-righteous persecution complex is making me sick. I don't want to hear your life story. This forum is entitled "are the moraly right the victors of war?" and we have been discussing the nature of morality as a direct consequence. Discussions of the application are entirely secondary here, and so these moralists of which you so often speak, as well as all of your other pet peeves, should be properly relegated to a forum entitled "The pseudo-doctrine of Les Sleeth".


Here's my impression of moralists. They are stiff. They can be cold-hearted or mean-spirited, even if perfectly "behaved." They are self-righteous. They are preachy. They often find ways to morally justify improper actions.

My experience has been it is often those who are most afraid to trust their heart who preach morals most passionately.
I take this as a personal attack. You dub me a moralist, and then proceed to describe moralists as stiff, arrogant, cold-hearted etc. etc.

Therefore, I shall not dignifiy any more of your posts in this forum with a response.

[Les Sleeth]

I take this as a personal attack. You dub me a moralist, and then proceed to describe moralists as stiff, arrogant, cold-hearted etc. etc.

I will start with this since I didn't mean what I said as a personal attack. Sorry for how it came off, but what I meant to say (but failed to), was that your statement from the position of supporting moralism made sense.

I then went on to describe the traits in moralists I don't care for. I don't know if you are a practicing moralist or not, and especially if you embody any of the personality traits I listed. I was only talking about those moralists I do know.


Yours is very much an argumentative response. It is precisely the response given to the statement in my previous post concerning the possible reasons for enforcing moral codification (namely, the religious foundations of morality). To say that "I don't accept religious foundations of morality" is to present a de facto argument.

I was saying it's not an "argument," in the sense of responding to some proposition which I need to refute. It was you who said to "assume God decreed . . ." I haven't found any evidence of God decreeing morals that's convincing enough to make me "assume" what you suggest I should. If you assert something not self-evident, the burden is on you to make it evident before asking other to assume it's true.


Oh, give me a break; your self-righteous persecution complex is making me sick. I don't want to hear your life story.

What's that, your idea of politeness and humility? Let's see, what was I saying about moralists?