Where is Morality Going? [Archive]

russ_watters

Aug6-03, 01:21 AM

I was actually thinking about starting my own thread last week on this, but this thread has gone philosophical with the morality so it seems appropriate here:

Moral Relativism. All morality is in the "eye of the beholder." There is no absolute standard of morality at all and therefore no basis to say one person's morality is any better than any other person's. Of course that means there is no basis for LAWS.

Moral Absolutism. There is an absolute standard of morality. Pretty straightforward. It is important to note however that just because there IS an absolute standard, doesn't mean we KNOW what the absolute standard is. That makes it more complicated than relativism because then you have to make decisions on where the line is. Beyond that you have to make decisions on who gets to make those decisions. Back to the eye of the beholder idea again. This is an apparent contradiction that Zero pointed out to me in PM.

So which is right? Is there an absolute standard of morality or not? Both views have clear flaws.

Relativism leads to anarchy unless you can strike a compromise - agreeing (through democracy for example) to subject yourself to someone else's (the "people's") view of morality. I have found that this is the dominant view. It helps that most people in the US follow the Judeo/Christian moral tradition so our views on morality aren't that far apart. But that means that we have no basis for a foreign policy except by international consensus. Hitler isn't subject to our moral code because he's not an American. Now that we have the UN, it gives us a crutch - allowing us to keep moral relativism by ceding to the will of the UN (depending on who writes the foreign policy of course). Having the UN eliminates the need for the member nations to have a set standard of morality and stand up for it. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Moral absolutism has the flaw of needing to decide where that absolute standard comes from and who knows what it is. If one person says there is an absolute standard given to him by God that says cannibalism is murder and another has an absolutes standard given to him by Ra that says its ok, how do you know who'se standard is the right one?

The answer is this: You approach the question scientifically. You set groundrules (baseline assumptions). You form a hypothesis and you see if it works. Now religious types HATE this idea because it takes God out of the picture. For some strange reason though most people support moral relativism (I think maybe I need to start a poll), most would also claim due to their religion that their God has given them the one true morality. A clear contradiction. In any case, if you approach morality scientifically, you CAN figure it out (for the most part anyway). The question really is where does the study lead? Does it lead, as many suspect physics does, to a single set of unifying rules (equations) that work in all situations? Or does it lead down a path of boxes within boxes, defining morality for ever more complex and gray situations wituout end? Dunno. As I indicated before, we don't have all the answers yet (thats part of what makes it tough).

Now about those groundrules I talked about. The primary one is that a universal rule must be universal. Sounds self evident, but the implication is that you can't look at a situation in a vacuum. You have to flip it over and ask yourself "what if everyone else behaved this way?" Its kinda like the golden rule. A simple example is indiscriminite killing (murder). If everyone went around shooting people at random, what would happen? Clearly society would break down and everyone except one lucky bastard would be dead. So clearly indiscriminite killing must be morally wrong. Note: I use the most extreme examples for the sake of illustration, but clearly there are situations that are far more grey.

Now the application of this groundrule leads to a very uncomfortable (for many) implication: The Moral Imperative. Its the root of all debates on foreign policy. The domestic equivalent is "Good Samaritan" laws. The Moral Imperative states simply that it is morally wrong to turn a blind eye to a moral injustice that is being comitted in front of you and that you have the power to stop. You can arrive at this conclusion by applying universality: what if NO ONE stepped in to correct an injustice? That means no police, no lawyers, no prisons, no accountability at all. The criminals would take over.

Now I know this is a lot so I'll stop here. I know I haven't quite finished the thought, but this will generate a lot of feedback on its own. I'd like to deal with that before taking the next step.

Incidentally, this is a topic on which my background, though I tend to think is not really relevant, many will find interesting. I developed my coherent position on morality (as opposed to the one beaten into me by my mother, but never thought out) at the US Naval Academy. It seems morality and ethics were a real problem with the military especially during the Vietnam war. Besides classes in ethics where you simply read one person's book then discuss it or list the different theories and define them, we had seminars where we discussed it in a far more general way. Thats where I got my assessment that the majority (I think 80% or so) of people I've come across are moral relativists. By the end of the seminars, virtually all are moral absolutists. Now spare me the brainwashing bit - the people who go to the Naval Academy are pretty smart (note: I didn't finish, so I'm not tooting my own horn) and can think for themselves. The seminars are led by ordinary profs and structured loosely. Smart people arrive at the same conclusion because it is inevitable. Like the laws of physics it works. Its just that most people have never thought universal morality through.See, you outline the problem nicely, Russ. I know thats probably one of the most annoying things about me, Zero - I outline questions well but I don't necessarily always answer them. I don't intend to be specifically evasive, I just try to flush out other people's opinions in a way that leads them to mine. However if the question is complicated enough that it requres some skill to frame it clearly, it is inevitably also going to have a complicated answer. Even then, I don't always express my opinions clearly if I'm trying to generate a discussion. I'll try to be more specific in this thread now that we've beaten around the bush enough to flush out the problem.

Zero

Aug6-03, 01:29 AM

I think I'm gonna have to move this out of here...it seems to be a good thread, but it has turned more philospical than anything else.

Zero

Aug6-03, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
I was actually thinking about starting my own thread last week on this, but this thread has gone philosophical with the morality so it seems appropriate here:

Moral Relativism. All morality is in the "eye of the beholder." There is no absolute standard of morality at all and therefore no basis to say one person's morality is any better than any other person's. Of course that means there is no basis for LAWS. Not quite true, at least I don't think so. More later.

Moral Absolutism. There is an absolute standard of morality. Pretty straightforward. It is important to note however that just because there IS an absolute standard, doesn't mean we KNOW what the absolute standard is. That makes it more complicated than relativism because then you have to make decisions on where the line is. Beyond that you have to make decisions on who gets to make those decisions. Back to the eye of the beholder idea again. This is an apparent contradiction that Zero pointed out to me in PM. With you so far.

So which is right? Is there an absolute standard of morality or not? Both views have clear flaws.

Relativism leads to anarchy unless you can strike a compromise - agreeing (through democracy for example) to subject yourself to someone else's (the "people's") view of morality. I have found that this is the dominant view. It helps that most people in the US follow the Judeo/Christian moral tradition so our views on morality aren't that far apart. But that means that we have no basis for a foreign policy except by international consensus. Hitler isn't subject to our moral code because he's not an American. Now that we have the UN, it gives us a crutch - allowing us to keep moral relativism by ceding to the will of the UN (depending on who writes the foreign policy of course). Having the UN eliminates the need for the member nations to have a set standard of morality and stand up for it. But I'm getting ahead of myself. I would say that the purpose of an organization like the UN is more about setting and defending very broad absolutes, that nearly everyone agrees on. Very basic human rights are supported by logical means(which I know even both of us generally agree on, so how hard can it be for the rest of the world?;))

Moral absolutism has the flaw of needing to decide where that absolute standard comes from and who knows what it is. If one person says there is an absolute standard given to him by God that says cannibalism is murder and another has an absolutes standard given to him by Ra that says its ok, how do you know who'se standard is the right one? Moral absolutism, at least how I see it practiced, also leaves little 'wiggle room' for judgment calls. There are often mitigating circumstances which make a simple abolutist ideology fail. Also, it is less than realistic to attempt to try to force our messy reality into the framework of an idealized framework of absolutist morality. In other words, I think absolutists have a huge blind spot when dealing with anything more than the most simplistic ideas.

[qoute]The answer is this: You approach the question scientifically. You set groundrules (baseline assumptions). You form a hypothesis and you see if it works. Now religious types HATE this idea because it takes God out of the picture. For some strange reason though most people support moral relativism (I think maybe I need to start a poll), most would also claim due to their religion that their God has given them the one true morality. A clear contradiction. In any case, if you approach morality scientifically, you CAN figure it out (for the most part anyway). The question really is where does the study lead? Does it lead, as many suspect physics does, to a single set of unifying rules (equations) that work in all situations? Or does it lead down a path of boxes within boxes, defining morality for ever more complex and gray situations wituout end? Dunno. As I indicated before, we don't have all the answers yet (thats part of what makes it tough).[/quote] Yeah, really tough, but that's what we're here for, aren't we?

[qoute]Now about those groundrules I talked about. The primary one is that a universal rule must be universal. Sounds self evident, but the implication is that you can't look at a situation in a vacuum. You have to flip it over and ask yourself "what if everyone else behaved this way?" Its kinda like the golden rule. A simple example is indiscriminite killing (murder). If everyone went around shooting people at random, what would happen? Clearly society would break down and everyone except one lucky bastard would be dead. So clearly indiscriminite killing must be morally wrong. Note: I use the most extreme examples for the sake of illustration, but clearly there are situations that are far more grey.[/quote] Last point first: it is the grey areas that hurt the purely absolutist concept. I would say that some good Socialist/Communist philosophy would fit in here nicely, don't you? You'll agree with me later(in principle).

Now the application of this groundrule leads to a very uncomfortable (for many) implication: The Moral Imperative. Its the root of all debates on foreign policy. The domestic equivalent is "Good Samaritan" laws. The Moral Imperative states simply that it is morally wrong to turn a blind eye to a moral injustice that is being comitted in front of you and that you have the power to stop. You can arrive at this conclusion by applying universality: what if NO ONE stepped in to correct an injustice? That means no police, no lawyers, no prisons, no accountability at all. The criminals would take over.

Now I know this is a lot so I'll stop here. I know I haven't quite finished the thought, but this will generate a lot of feedback on its own. I'd like to deal with that before taking the next step. I'll wait until you go a bit further before I comment further...deal?

Incidentally, this is a topic on which my background, though I tend to think is not really relevant, many will find interesting. I developed my coherent position on morality (as opposed to the one beaten into me by my mother, but never thought out) at the US Naval Academy. It seems morality and ethics were a real problem with the military especially during the Vietnam war. Besides classes in ethics where you simply read one person's book then discuss it or list the different theories and define them, we had seminars where we discussed it in a far more general way. Thats where I got my assessment that the majority (I think 80% or so) of people I've come across are moral relativists. By the end of the seminars, virtually all are moral absolutists. Now spare me the brainwashing bit - the people who go to the Naval Academy are pretty smart (note: I didn't finish, so I'm not tooting my own horn) and can think for themselves. The seminars are led by ordinary profs and structured loosely. Smart people arrive at the same conclusion because it is inevitable.

Like the laws of physics it works. Its just that most people have never thought universal morality through. I know thats probably one of the most annoying things about me, Zero - I outline questions well but I don't necessarily always answer them. I don't intend to be specifically evasive, I just try to flush out other people's opinions in a way that leads them to mine. However if the question is complicated enough that it requres some skill to frame it clearly, it is inevitably also going to have a complicated answer. Even then, I don't always express my opinions clearly if I'm trying to generate a discussion. I'll try to be more specific in this thread now that we've beaten around the bush enough to flush out the problem. [6)]
I think this is a failing with have both displayed now and again. When we try to reduce complicated issues to a one-paragraph response, it inevitably turns into a fight, mostly because we are not being clear enough in our statements or motivations.

Oh, and can I ask if you can see the moral relativism in the views you hold?

Zero

Aug6-03, 01:54 AM

Oh, and just to interject my own views, I believe in a 'moral judgment framework', in which you start with a general absolute, then apply reason and judgment to individual cases, and at best try to decide on a 'least wrong' course of action.

Zero

Aug6-03, 01:57 AM

And just because I don't want you to think I've gotten soft on you, Russ:Smart people arrive at the same conclusion because it is inevitable. Smart people are the most easily fooled (and brainwashed). [6)]

Zantra

Aug6-03, 02:22 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
I was actually thinking about starting my own thread last week on this, but this thread has gone philosophical with the morality so it seems appropriate here:

Moral Relativism. All morality is in the "eye of the beholder." There is no absolute standard of morality at all and therefore no basis to say one person's morality is any better than any other person's. Of course that means there is no basis for LAWS.

Moral Absolutism. There is an absolute standard of morality. Pretty straightforward. It is important to note however that just because there IS an absolute standard, doesn't mean we KNOW what the absolute standard is. That makes it more complicated than relativism because then you have to make decisions on where the line is. Beyond that you have to make decisions on who gets to make those decisions. Back to the eye of the beholder idea again. This is an apparent contradiction that Zero pointed out to me in PM.

So which is right? Is there an absolute standard of morality or not? Both views have clear flaws.

Relativism leads to anarchy unless you can strike a compromise - agreeing (through democracy for example) to subject yourself to someone else's (the "people's") view of morality. I have found that this is the dominant view. It helps that most people in the US follow the Judeo/Christian moral tradition so our views on morality aren't that far apart. But that means that we have no basis for a foreign policy except by international consensus. Hitler isn't subject to our moral code because he's not an American. Now that we have the UN, it gives us a crutch - allowing us to keep moral relativism by ceding to the will of the UN (depending on who writes the foreign policy of course). Having the UN eliminates the need for the member nations to have a set standard of morality and stand up for it. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Moral absolutism has the flaw of needing to decide where that absolute standard comes from and who knows what it is. If one person says there is an absolute standard given to him by God that says cannibalism is murder and another has an absolutes standard given to him by Ra that says its ok, how do you know who'se standard is the right one?

The answer is this: You approach the question scientifically. You set groundrules (baseline assumptions). You form a hypothesis and you see if it works. Now religious types HATE this idea because it takes God out of the picture. For some strange reason though most people support moral relativism (I think maybe I need to start a poll), most would also claim due to their religion that their God has given them the one true morality. A clear contradiction. In any case, if you approach morality scientifically, you CAN figure it out (for the most part anyway). The question really is where does the study lead? Does it lead, as many suspect physics does, to a single set of unifying rules (equations) that work in all situations? Or does it lead down a path of boxes within boxes, defining morality for ever more complex and gray situations wituout end? Dunno. As I indicated before, we don't have all the answers yet (thats part of what makes it tough).

Now about those groundrules I talked about. The primary one is that a universal rule must be universal. Sounds self evident, but the implication is that you can't look at a situation in a vacuum. You have to flip it over and ask yourself "what if everyone else behaved this way?" Its kinda like the golden rule. A simple example is indiscriminite killing (murder). If everyone went around shooting people at random, what would happen? Clearly society would break down and everyone except one lucky bastard would be dead. So clearly indiscriminite killing must be morally wrong. Note: I use the most extreme examples for the sake of illustration, but clearly there are situations that are far more grey.

Now the application of this groundrule leads to a very uncomfortable (for many) implication: The Moral Imperative. Its the root of all debates on foreign policy. The domestic equivalent is "Good Samaritan" laws. The Moral Imperative states simply that it is morally wrong to turn a blind eye to a moral injustice that is being comitted in front of you and that you have the power to stop. You can arrive at this conclusion by applying universality: what if NO ONE stepped in to correct an injustice? That means no police, no lawyers, no prisons, no accountability at all. The criminals would take over.

Now I know this is a lot so I'll stop here. I know I haven't quite finished the thought, but this will generate a lot of feedback on its own. I'd like to deal with that before taking the next step.

Incidentally, this is a topic on which my background, though I tend to think is not really relevant, many will find interesting. I developed my coherent position on morality (as opposed to the one beaten into me by my mother, but never thought out) at the US Naval Academy. It seems morality and ethics were a real problem with the military especially during the Vietnam war. Besides classes in ethics where you simply read one person's book then discuss it or list the different theories and define them, we had seminars where we discussed it in a far more general way. Thats where I got my assessment that the majority (I think 80% or so) of people I've come across are moral relativists. By the end of the seminars, virtually all are moral absolutists. Now spare me the brainwashing bit - the people who go to the Naval Academy are pretty smart (note: I didn't finish, so I'm not tooting my own horn) and can think for themselves. The seminars are led by ordinary profs and structured loosely. Smart people arrive at the same conclusion because it is inevitable. Like the laws of physics it works. Its just that most people have never thought universal morality through. I know thats probably one of the most annoying things about me, Zero - I outline questions well but I don't necessarily always answer them. I don't intend to be specifically evasive, I just try to flush out other people's opinions in a way that leads them to mine. However if the question is complicated enough that it requres some skill to frame it clearly, it is inevitably also going to have a complicated answer. Even then, I don't always express my opinions clearly if I'm trying to generate a discussion. I'll try to be more specific in this thread now that we've beaten around the bush enough to flush out the problem.

I think my view would tend to lean more toward relativism. Except that is too narrow of a definition. Moral relativism is applicable to society as a whole. Indeed morality is in the eyes of the beholder, or in a broader term, in the eyes of the generation. I've talked about this in other posts, but for a refresher I'll briefly reiterate.

Views change from one generation to the next. What doesn't work for one generation my simply be taken for granted by the next. it's progressionism. People first reject, then regard suspiciously, then finally accept a new ideal. This continually happens in a cycle. Some ideals are more steep than others, but it's all about perspective. Someone who is 50 may have a quite different perspective on what is morally acceptable than say, a 20 year old. The older the person, the harder time he or she has accepting new ideals. Of course this also varies from person to person, but there is still a need to establish a vague baseline based on the moral MAJORITY. if 7 out of 10 people reject abortion, then the baseline is obvious. However if you were break it down demographically by age group, I'm sure you'd find that 10/10 40+ find it unacceptable, while only 3/10 under 40 find it unacceptable(note that these are estimations, not fact, as they suit my explanation). So basically it comes down to one word: persepctive. That is what is the baseline for morality. You can take any new controversial subject(homosexuality, cloning, abortion, etc) and break it down by age group, and allowing for variances, you'll find without exception that it flows with the beliefs of each generation and thier acceptance of that particular ideal.

rocket art

Aug6-03, 03:52 AM

Here's a one paragraph response. A wholistic perspective of morality, not a biased perspective of it. Problems occur because of the latter.

Another God

Aug6-03, 04:56 AM

Moral Imperative states simply that it is morally wrong to turn a blind eye to a moral injustice that is being comitted in front of you and that you have the power to stop. I always encounter this problem when discussing morality: People are asking to define what being moral is and how to act moral, and whether we should have a common morality or whatever, and for some reason, always, somewhere within an explanation somewhere, someone slips the term morality in, and still doesn't explain what it means or what it covers.

It's easy to say that one shouldn't turn a blind eye to a moral injustice....but what is a moral injustice????

i want court decisions, movements, precedents of any kind, the integration of the internet and its implications... that type of stuff...
I think morality is improving in a sloppy evolutionary style way. Why? Because our societies are integrating over time, and the global community is forming (messily, yes. WIth spillt blood, yes...but it is happening), and morality only makes sense in the eyes of a community.

Thought for the day: If you are the last person left on earth: What is morality to you? What is right, and what is wrong?

Zero

Aug6-03, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by rocket art
Here's a one paragraph response. A wholistic perspective of morality, not a biased perspective of it. Problems occur because of the latter. This isn't much of an answer, is it? Can you give us more?

pace

Aug6-03, 01:07 PM

Quoting Lars Fr. H. Svendsen, professor in philosophy at Bergen:

God is dead, morality is left to us.

Zero

Aug6-03, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by pace
Quoting Lars Fr. H. Svendsen, professor in philosophy at Bergen:

God is dead, morality is left to us.

If so, can you tell us what you think we should be striving for?

russ_watters

Aug6-03, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by Another God
It's easy to say that one shouldn't turn a blind eye to a moral injustice....but what is a moral injustice????...I think morality is improving in a sloppy evolutionary style way. Why? Because our societies are integrating over time, and the global community is forming (messily, yes. WIth spillt blood, yes...but it is happening), and morality only makes sense in the eyes of a community. I would agree with your objection and Zero, maybe this will help with your objections. I did say that absolute morality is tough to nail down. So the things that are gray and still debateable are where it gets tough. If something isn't figured out yet, that does NOT mean it is "in the eye of the beholder." Just like with science you are not free to fill in the holes however you see fit.

Though it may seem like the morality level of our society is slipping (and in some areas it ceratinly is), there are clear improvements that have come about in the moral structure of both the US and the western world as a whole. Ending of slavery, end of the age of empires, woman's suffrage, labor laws, international organizations, international aid, etc. Moral absolutism, at least how I see it practiced, also leaves little 'wiggle room' for judgment calls. Thats key, Zero: How it is practiced. As with many things, if applied incorrectly it breaks down. Many people try to drop the hammer on things that aren't quite as clear as they want them to be. For the gray areas, until we have them figured out it is necessary to leave some room for judgement calls. But that doesn't make morality relative. Just like with a scientific theory we accept the known limitations for the time being while we try to find something better. Smart people are the most easily fooled (and brainwashed). I think you have it exactly backwards: if someone is easily brainwashed, they aren't very smart. Being able to objectively evaluate information is a key component of intelligence.I would say that the purpose of an organization like the UN is more about setting and defending very broad absolutes, that nearly everyone agrees on. I agree, but it seems to me that the UN doesn't work that way. The UN is as political as political organizations get and politics often does not follow a moral code. [/understatement]I would say that some good Socialist/Communist philosophy would fit in here nicely, don't you? I discussed utilitarianism a little bit. Socialism/communism is almost completely a utilitarian theory.Oh, and can I ask if you can see the moral relativism in the views you hold? No. But I'm sure you'll point some out to me. I have stated repeatedly and emphatically that I am not perfect.

Another God

Aug7-03, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
Though it may seem like the morality level of our society is slipping (and in some areas it ceratinly is), there are clear improvements that have come about in the moral structure of both the US and the western world as a whole. Ending of slavery, end of the age of empires, woman's suffrage, labor laws, international organizations, international aid, etc. I don't understand on what grounds one could claim morality is slipping.

In fact, I think the more realistic claim is : Morality is improving, becuase we are becoming more critical of every move anyone makes.

In which case, its not that more bad things are being done, but rather, more things are being labeled bad, and so it seems like more bad things are happening.
Or maybe more accurately, the bad things are more visible. TV, Internet etc allows us to see all of the bad things we do. We never had this before.

RageSk8

Aug7-03, 02:02 AM

If something isn't figured out yet, that does NOT mean it is "in the eye of the beholder." Just like with science you are not free to fill in the holes however you see fit.

I agree with this statement completely, but I also am emphatically against moral absolutism (at least how it is generally practiced. Nothing is absolutely wrong. That is, there are actions that are definitely wrong, but this comes from those actions' relations to other actions, not from inherent qualities of those actions (bad wording but I don't know how to fix it).

I discussed utilitarianism a little bit. Socialism/communism is almost completely a utilitarian theory.

Errr.... Well, actually, communism is not close to utilitarianism. Now, most utilitarianism I disagree with, but many who have been influenced by this thought have given and do give interesting perspectives. Don't play into the conservative stereoptype of seeing everything as back and white, as dubbing any social policy aimed at redistribution as "commie-pinko ****".

Zero

Aug7-03, 02:27 AM

I think there is a single moral absolute: Do not cause other people unnecessary harm.

Unforutnately, try pinning down the definitions of 'unnecessary' and 'harm'!

Another God

Aug7-03, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by RageSk8
I agree with this statement completely, but I also am emphatically against moral absolutism (at least how it is generally practiced. Nothing is absolutely wrong. That is, there are actions that are definitely wrong, but this comes from those actions' relations to other actions, not from inherent qualities of those actions (bad wording but I don't know how to fix it).I agree with this statement completely. And I think you said it fine. In my mind, right and wrong is determined by the situation with all factors in consideration.

Zero

Aug7-03, 02:47 AM

And, I'll be honest, my gut reaction is to distrust anyone who claims that there is only a single correct course of action, and all others are wrong. I am much more receptive to the idea of 'there are many choices, and this one is the best we can do.'

Another God

Aug7-03, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by Zero
I think there is a single moral absolute: Do not cause other people unnecessary harm.

Unforutnately, try pinning down the definitions of 'unnecessary' and 'harm'! Just to be somewhat antagonistic I would say it is more accurately

"Do not cause another thing which may assist you in some way unecessary harm beyond the extent to which it will impact its willingness/ability to help you"

Because we cause harm to everything all the time. It's pretty much an essentially thing for life. It's only the things which we percieve as potentially being useful for us later that we try to help/save/not destroy.

For instance, the US was friendly with Saddam when they thought he was useful. As soon as it seemed he was never going to help the US again... BOOM

russ_watters

Aug7-03, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by RageSk8
Nothing is absolutely wrong. That is, there are actions that are definitely wrong, but this comes from those actions' relations to other actions, not from inherent qualities of those actions (bad wording but I don't know how to fix it). Yeah... you're gonna need to try to fix it because that is an oxymoron. Paraphrase:

Nothing is absolutely wrong.
Some things are absolutely wrong.

To me this is actually indicative of the common view: When examined closely I think most people's views of morality are self-contradictory. Part of the problem is that its uncomfortable to think there is an absolute morality. And yet, most people in the US are Christians. You can't get any more absolute than ten commandments handed down by God (though as I have stated you can reach the same conclusions without God).

I asked this question in the other thread: Have you guys ever taken an ethics course? I took "engineering ethics" but thats not what I mean. Thats a course that focuses on specific case studies. I mean a course simply titled "Ethics" that discusses the various theories and history of ethics, similar to the way a political science class discusses the major theories and history of their development. It was required where I went, but from what I've seen very few other schools require it. Its strange to me because its so important yet people never study it. We leave it up to people to figure out for themselves - which is why most people just get it from their religion. Morality needs to be taught in school. I think there is a single moral absolute: Do not cause other people unnecessary harm. Not a bad start, Zero. And I think you realize how vast that concept can really be (as indicated by your next sentence). The bulk of morality is based on that single universal law. I agree with this statement completely. And I think you said it fine. In my mind, right and wrong is determined by the situation with all factors in consideration. Just like physics, right? So why does that preclude universal laws?

Also, I think Zero said it just fine. AG, the word "unnecessary" covers your objection.

I think maybe you guys are misunderstanding what "universal law" implies. A universal law is general, not specific. Its the CRITERIA for making the decision, not the decision itself.

I'm sure you guys know that the complexity of the equations makes it pretty much impossible to get an exact solution for the behavior of more than one electron orbit at a time. Complex ethical situations are the same way: the laws are still there and they still work, but the situation is so complex it can only be approximated. That does NOT mean our theories on electron orbits are wrong (or that there are no rules governing the motion of electrons), the just don't give quite so exact solutions in complex situations.

Zero

Aug7-03, 10:52 AM

The problem with absolutes is not the absolute itself. It is how people choose to use them in their own special moral relativism. For instance, people spout the absolute 'thou shall not kill', then support war, the death penalty, etc.

maximus

Aug7-03, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
Nothing is absolutely wrong.
Some things are absolutely wrong.

i believe there is an error in this logic. the logical implication would be more like:

Nothing is absolutely wrong.
Some things are absolutely right (or NOT WRONG).

which follows the formula:
Not A is B
A is not B

an example:
NO candy (A) is sweet (B).
Sweetness (B) is not in candy (A). (well, you get what i'm saying)

maximus

Aug7-03, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by Another God
"Do not cause another thing which may assist you in some way unecessary harm beyond the extent to which it will impact its willingness/ability to help you"

seems a bit selfish, doesn't it? i agree with you, of course, but don't find this to be a very "moral" ideal. so then the question is raised: does morality exist? or is everything we do in some way done to help ourselves? (i don't mean to hijack. i think this is a worthy question in the discussion of morality)

Royce

Aug7-03, 12:21 PM

In a world with many different societies with many different moral codes I don't think that there is such a thing as absolute or universal morality. Each society will have its own morality. Even within one society there are different morality code for different groups or regions as pointed out in other posts.

Unless we all accept the idea of one God with one absolute morale code, I don't see how we could come up with a moral code for everyone in the world.

Philosophically it is easy to say that there is absolute right and wrong and morals should be based on those rights and wrongs but I don't think that it would be possible to prove it reguardless of culture or society.

Maybe as we, world wide, become more and more civilized and more one culture due to trade and communications we can agree on a universal morale code. Until then it is just the biggist and most powerful imposing it's own morales on the smaller weaker cultures. This to me is immorale in itself.

russ_watters

Aug7-03, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by maximus
i believe there is an error in this logic. the logical implication would be more like:

Nothing is absolutely wrong.
Some things are absolutely right (or NOT WRONG).

which follows the formula:
Not A is B
A is not B

an example:
NO candy (A) is sweet (B).
Sweetness (B) is not in candy (A). (well, you get what i'm saying) That was a paraphrase. The original quote said nothing about things being right. And in any case, I don't buy your arguement either. If nothing can be absolutely wrong, then nothing can be absolutely right. But this is OT anyway since I have already said I believe there ARE absolutes.

The problem with absolutes is not the absolute itself. It is how people choose to use them in their own special moral relativism. For instance, people spout the absolute 'thou shall not kill', then support war, the death penalty, etc. Clearly. Each society will have its own morality. Of course. But does having your own code necessarily make your code RIGHT? Again, be very clear on the implications here. It means you have no basis to ever tell anyone they are morally wrong. Hitler? Stalin? Well, they have their own morality...

russ_watters

Aug7-03, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by maximus
seems a bit selfish, doesn't it? i agree with you, of course, but don't find this to be a very "moral" ideal. so then the question is raised: does morality exist? or is everything we do in some way done to help ourselves? (i don't mean to hijack. i think this is a worthy question in the discussion of morality) It is a worthy and tough question. Another way to put it is this:

Is there such a thing as a purely altruistic act?

I would argue there is not. You ALWAYS get something in return for any action you take. One might argue they don't care if they get something in return, but they still do get something back.

But in any case, it fits: every act can have a component of selfishness to it. And there isn't anything wrong with that. Your first duty is always to yourself. Selfishness is not necessarily immoral.

Royce

Aug7-03, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters

Clearly. Of course. But does having your own code necessarily make your code RIGHT? Again, be very clear on the implications here. It means you have no basis to ever tell anyone they are morally wrong. Hitler? Stalin? Well, they have their own morality...

On what do we base absolute right or wrong, humanistic morals, human rights, religious doctrine or dogma? If so, whose?

I have no basis to ever tell anyone that they are morally wrong unless they are violating the moral codes of their own culture or society.

Hitler was morally wrong in that he forcefully imposed his will, law and morales, if we can call them that, on societies, countries other than his own.

Stalin was moralely wrong in that he violated his own societies morale code.

So far as socialism and communism is concerned, those are primarily economical systems not morale systems.

I of course have my own morale code based on the culture that I grew up in and the religion I believe in. That does not give me the right to judge others or their code unless they are in violation of their own code or are trying to impose their code onto me or my or any other society.

In short who am I to judge others and of course who are you to judge
others? What makes you or me right and them wrong?

That we have the morale ground to impose our morales or judge other's morales is the very thing we must avoid at all cost.

russ_watters

Aug7-03, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Royce
On what do we base absolute right or wrong, humanistic morals, human rights, religious doctrine or dogma? Scientific and philosophical study of morality. It can be clearly shown in most circumstances that certain moralities are absolutely wrong. I explained this in pretty good detail in my other posts.

Hitler can be proven to be wrong morally because his society failed specifically because it was morally wrong. His morality led him to his own destruction. Stalin was moralely wrong in that he violated his own societies morale code. Stalin was the dictator. The moral code was whatever he said it was.

I can't believe you're ok with the implication that we should let the Hitlers and Stalins of the world murder people by the millions.

Also, if there is no basis for an international moral code, what is the basis for a domestic one? And what if the people of the country think theirs is universal? Is that wrong? But thats a universal moral law, that no country can have universal moral laws.

Royce, I'm thinking maybe you skipped a page here - I think I provided quite convincing arguements in my comparison of moral absolutism and moral relativism. Perhaps you could tell me what you thought was wrong with my arguements there since its the basis for the rest of this.

Another God

Aug8-03, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
Of course. But does having your own code necessarily make your code RIGHT?
...
Hitler can be proven to be wrong morally because his society failed specifically because it was morally wrong. His morality led him to his own destruction.Russ, you keep leaving out this one unspoken premise each time someone gets you to this point. I mentioned this in the 'Wrong to kill someone' thread, and I will say it again here:
You speak of something being morally right, and another thing being morally wrong, but you never validate your reasons (explicitly) for evaluating them so (You just say that they are because ethics are absolute, and these are right and wrong on that scale.)

I now think that your reasons for evaluating them as right and wrong are the same reasons as I use (based on the hitler quote above, and your reference to the failure of viking societies etc), and so I will spell out what I believe your view is for everyone (including yourself, so that in the future you will just say it).

"Something is morally right, if it works to maintain a stable society."

Obviously, a society which allows people to walk around killing, will fall apart. Even a society which treats death loosley, allowing death penalty to be applied to most people, even with little evidence will fall apart, as the citizens within it become fearful for their own life.

And so, morality is the glue of society. The absolute measure of morality, is how well it can hold a group of humans together. (Complications to the matter include: How large a group can x moral system hold together. How well does moral system X interact with moral system y, its neighbour? etc)

I can't believe you're ok with the implication that we should let the Hitlers and Stalins of the world murder people by the millions.You are only not ok with it, because u believe the world is your society (thanks to the closeness allowed by the internet, TV, Phonelines, Newspapers even), and as such, the actrions of Hitler and Stalin would obviously upset the global society, and thus make you fearful for your, and your family/friends lives. On the absolute scale, from the global community perspective, this is morally wrong. On the Absolute scale, from the german perspective, this may be right or wrong, depending on whether they won or not...If they won, and controlled the whole world, eliminated all of the other races etc, then they would live in a moral, upright, functional society. (well...actually, probably not. They would have had blurry lines that couldn't be drawn, and then people who were 1 8th jewish would be fearful for their lives etc etc...and the society would crumble...and so, their morality would be wrong. but anyway.)

Do you see that point though? The absolute scale still depends on what perspective it is applied from.

Also, if there is no basis for an international moral code, what is the basis for a domestic one? And what if the people of the country think theirs is universal? Is that wrong? But thats a universal moral law, that no country can have universal moral laws.The problem is, we are now a global community whether we like it or not, but we are still politically segregated. As such, we have conflict. eventually, the 'correct' morality will rise. All of the competitors will be selected against. [:D]

Royce

Aug8-03, 07:47 AM

I agree AG. We seem to be understanding the same things or nearly so.
russ think of it as evolution in acktion. It may take hundreds of years and millions may die unjustly and needlessly but any and every society and/or culture will colapse if it its morality and economy is too far from what is becoming the majority of the worlds morality and economy.
Right or wrong doesn't matter. What matters is that it maintains a stable productive society in which it's members are content and florish and prosper. The other criteria is that it be acceptable to and competative with the world's majority.
It is not tha might makes right but that might defines right in the real world.

Is there an absolute right? Yes, my morale code is absolute right and where your morale code conflicts with mine that is absolute wrong.
Prove me wrong. You can't because I haven't said what my morale code is. Neither have you. Nor have I said what set of beliefs my moral code is based on and why mine is right and yours is wrong.

Is it ever justified to kill millions of people? Yes, of course it is, if those millions are threatening the rest of life on the planet. Its called war and there is justified wars for the same reason.

It is not simple black and white, right or wrong. If you maintain that there is absolute right then you must first tell us what is absolute right and prove that it is absolute. Until you do it is just your opinion. You are trying to impose your opinion on me by calling it absolute without support or proof.

If my absolute truths, morals, ethics, religion, dogma, philosophy, form of political government, economic system etc. doesn't agree with your absolute truths it becomes my morale imparitive to set you right, to impose my system of believes onto you. If you resist and refuse then it becomes my morale imperitive to wipe such an uncivilized uneducatetable barbarian of the face of the earth to make room for decent folks who agree with me. Do you see how it works and has worked for thousands of years.

This is why I said we must avoid such thinking at all cost. What, my friend, make you right and me wrong other than your opinion?

Royce

Aug8-03, 08:23 AM

The following is an example of where such thinking leads:

It is a proven scientific fact that the world is over populated by humans and we are headed for an ecological calapse that will wipe out civilization and possibly all of mankind if not life on earth.

It is a proven scientific face the the United States is the most powerful, productive, richest and morally just nation on the earth.

It is a proven scientific fact that the United States is a world leader and must survive to continue to lead the world in the path to economic prosperity, liberty and justice and the pursuit of happiness.

The most populated and least productive countries and regions in the world are China, India and all of Africa.

Therefore to save all of live on earth especially the United States, it is morally imperative for the United Stated to depopulate those areas mentioned above. It is absolutely right, necessary and justified and proven scientifically that this is must be done for the good of all mankind.

If China India and Africa disagree it is just that they are being selfish and care more about there personal survival than that of the rest of the world proving that they are unworthy, uneducated barbarians and depopulatings their countries is even more justified.
After all it is the very survival of the world and all of mankind we're talking about here.

Another perfect line of reasoning:
If I were a devote muslim I would know absolutely that the Koran was absolutely true and right. If any Jew or Christian, infidels would not convert to Islam then it becaomes my moral imperitive and religious duty to kill them and wipe them all off the face of the earth. Sound familiar.

By the same token if I am a devote Jew or Christian my life and way of life is threatened by Islam and I am therefore morally bound and religiously justified in defending myself, my country and my people by wiping out all of Islam.

This is where absolute right and wrong and absolute morallity leads us. The only alternative is tolerance and understanding. Live and let live. Unless an aggressor attacks and kills or attempts to impose its will or morales or relion etc upon another culture we have no right to judge or act.

Royce

Aug8-03, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters

Moral Relativism.
Moral Absolutism.

So which is right? Is there an absolute standard of morality or not? Both views have clear flaws.

The answer is this: You approach the question scientifically. You set groundrules (baseline assumptions). You form a hypothesis and you see if it works.
... if you approach morality scientifically, you CAN figure it out (for the most part anyway). The question really is where does the study lead? Does it lead, as many suspect physics does, to a single set of unifying rules (equations) that work in all situations? Or does it lead down a path of boxes within boxes, defining morality for ever more complex and gray situations wituout end? Dunno. As I indicated before, we don't have all the answers yet (thats part of what makes it tough).

Now about those groundrules I talked about. The primary one is that a universal rule must be universal.

Now the application of this groundrule leads to a very uncomfortable (for many) implication: The Moral Imperative. Its the root of all debates on foreign policy. The domestic equivalent is "Good Samaritan" laws. The Moral Imperative states simply that it is morally wrong to turn a blind eye to a moral injustice that is being comitted in front of you and that you have the power to stop. You can arrive at this conclusion by applying universality: what if NO ONE stepped in to correct an injustice? That means no police, no lawyers, no prisons, no accountability at all. The criminals would take over.

My point, russ, is that simply by trying to find scientific universal morale code you are reverting to Morale Absolutism. Just as there are no absolutes in science, as I have been told many times here in PF, there are no morale absolutes.
There is no absolute right nor absolute wrong that can be proven reguardless of culture, background or religion. We can only reach a consensus of the majority of the powerful. Again might makes right.
I don't believe this personally and I believe that such thinking is immorale itself it is the reality of the world that we live in.

If you or anyone else can prove absolute universal right, wrong and/or morales either scientifically or logically, I will be one of the first to jump on the band wagon. Until then I will remain and absolute Morale Relativist on a global basis and a Morale Absolutist within my society while secrectly despising the Moral Majority.

russ_watters

Aug8-03, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Another God
Russ, you keep leaving out this one unspoken premise each time someone gets you to this point. I mentioned this in the 'Wrong to kill someone' thread, and I will say it again here:
You speak of something being morally right, and another thing being morally wrong, but you never validate your reasons (explicitly) for evaluating them so (You just say that they are because ethics are absolute, and these are right and wrong on that scale.) [:D] [/B] It was in there and you missed it (and I've said it several times):His morality led him to his own destruction. Thats how we know he was wrong. Clearly experimentation only works in simple and extreme cases (in science too), but it does work."Something is morally right, if it works to maintain a stable society.".....Obviously, a society which allows people to walk around killing, will fall apart. Even a society which treats death loosley, allowing death penalty to be applied to most people, even with little evidence will fall apart, as the citizens within it become fearful for their own life......[more]
Oh - so you do understand. On the Absolute scale, from the german perspective, ....or maybe you don't understand. Thats a contradiction. If its an absolute scale, then perspective is irrelevant. If they won, and controlled the whole world, eliminated all of the other races etc, then they would live in a moral, upright, functional society. (well...actually, probably not. They would have had blurry lines that couldn't be drawn, and then people who were 1 8th jewish would be fearful for their lives etc etc...and the society would crumble...and so, their morality would be wrong. but anyway.)...The problem is, we are now a global community whether we like it or not, but we are still politically segregated. As such, we have conflict. eventually, the 'correct' morality will rise. All of the competitors will be selected against. ...or maybe you DO understand. Hmm.

You are SOOOO close, Another God. You have all the pieces, but you are avoiding the conclusion. Do you just not like the implication? You're an athiest, right? Please note, I have structured my arguement scientifically: many moral absolutists believe the moral authority is God. I do not. Moral absolutism does not require a God.

russ_watters

Aug8-03, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by Royce
I agree AG. We seem to be understanding the same things or nearly so.
russ think of it as evolution in acktion. It may take hundreds of years and millions may die unjustly and needlessly but any and every society and/or culture will colapse if it its morality and economy is too far from what is becoming the majority of the worlds morality and economy. That is my belief EXACTLY. Of course its an evolutionary process. You even seem to agree that beacuse of that evolutionary process all societies are going to eventually come to have the same morality. The "best" MORALITY will rise to the top via evolution. Why doesn't it follow that this "best" morality is THE absolute morality?

You also understand all the pieces, you're just ignoring the implication.
Right or wrong doesn't matter. What matters is that it maintains a stable productive society in which it's members are content and florish and prosper. The other criteria is that it be acceptable to and competative with the world's majority.
It is not tha might makes right but that might defines right in the real world. My point is simply that those ideas are connected. It is right BECAUSE it works.

You guys seem to have everything else except for that connection.

[I haven't yet read the rest of your posts, Royce. If I've missed something important, I'll get to it.]

Royce

Aug8-03, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters

You also understand all the pieces, you're just ignoring the implication. My point is simply that those ideas are connected. It is right BECAUSE it works.

You guys seem to have everything else except for that connection.

I can't speak for AG. I probably do but I can't say I do. I get the connection and the implication and it is that with which I disagree.
It is, as I said, reverting to absolutism reguardless of what it is based on. "If it works it is right." is no more a valid basis for a universal morale code than religous dogma.
I am reminded of the old original Star Trek and their conflicts with the Prime Directive of non interference with alien cultures. They were constantly violating it for one wholly justified reason or another. This to me means the the Prime Directive was a piece of idealistic crap. I have the same feeling for any imagined absolute universal morale code. I don't think that one can exist in reality.
I don't think that there is any absolute right or wrong. But then I may be absolutely wrong here too.

russ_watters

Aug8-03, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Royce
"If it works it is right." is no more a valid basis for a universal morale code than religous dogma. Why not? Thats the basis of science. Religion is dogma because it IGNORES what works in favor of what someone thinks is right even if it doesn't work. Galileo's imprisonment comes to mind. Scince is not dogmatic because it allows for new information. It evolves. And in science, a theory is right because it works.

So I guess my quesiton is, why can't morality be approached scientifically?

Maybe this isn't even necessary. With your comparison to evolution, you all but conceded that at some point in the future moralities will converge (given enough time) and everyone on earth will follow the same moral code. That is pretty much the definition of universal. I guess you could say its universal in practice by default but not "truly" unviersal, but why? Why not just call it what it is: universal?

Royce

Aug8-03, 02:23 PM

Because it becomes dogma then. It become right because the majority believe it is right and it then can become justification to oppress or wipe out the minority. It would then work very well indeed and prove itself right everytime it destroys a dissident.
It is not the philosophy that is wrong it is humanity or the short comings of human nature. It has happened time after time and is happening as we speak. I have no doubt that it will happen again in the future.
The majority or most powerful define what is morally and religiously right, imposes that right on all of its citizens and oppress any who disagree. It soon becomes the law of the land and the universal absolute right. It can then be used to justify anything those in power want it to. This is why I am so against universal morality and say that it must be avoided at any and all cost.
The opposite of this thinking is freedom and libery, the freedom to believe what I think is right and the libery to put in practice that which I believe. So long as I do not infringe upon the rights of others I am free to believe and do whatever I like. It is as simple as that.

russ_watters

Aug8-03, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Royce
Because it becomes dogma then. Huh? Gravity exists, and we understand it. Our understanding of gravity in the Newtonian sense (limits and all) will likely never change. Does that make it dogmatic? (answer: no. Its still scientific).

Something is not dogmatic becaus it never changes, its dogmatic because people won't ACCEPT changing it. There is a huge difference there.The opposite of this thinking is freedom and libery, the freedom to believe what I think is right and the libery to put in practice that which I believe. So long as I do not infringe upon the rights of others I am free to believe and do whatever I like. It is as simple as that. Thats fine. Would you say that should apply to everyone? Universally...? [:D]

Royce

Aug8-03, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
Huh? Gravity exists, and we understand it. Our understanding of gravity in the Newtonian sense (limits and all) will likely never change. Does that make it dogmatic? (answer: no. Its still scientific).
[:D]

Fortunately, gravity is not influenced or controlled by human nature or human beings. Scientific theory or principles can and do become dogma. Didn't you mention something about Galileo. Need I say more? History does repeat itself.

Thats fine. Would you say that should apply to everyone? Universally...?

Yes, of course I do; but, who am I to say what should or should not apply to everyone.
I repeat, it is not the philosophy or reasoning that is wrong but we human beings. Human nature is the culprit. If we were perfect and count count on no one taking advantage of their power and our universal moral code then of courseI would agree with you whole hardily. But then if we were perfect we wouldn't need a moral code at all would we?

Another God

Aug8-03, 07:46 PM

Hmmm, too many posts to quote one, so let me try to address everything in one foul swoop: Russ, I do understand. It's sorta frustrating, because I want to engage with someone who believes differently, and instead, I find u, and you seem to have essentially the same view as me (we just call it by different names). And I think, even in an absolute scale, perspective still matters. I point this out, because the perspective of a tribe gives rise to a different set of ultimate morals, to the perspective of a country, to the perspective of a global community. Yet for each situation there is some moral code which is the best possible moral code for that community.

I'm going to have to go back to absolute first principle here and spell out how I understand all of this exactly.

Firstly, I believe 'right' and 'wrong' only make sense in light of a goal/desire/ends. If you want water, then it is 'right' to burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen and make H2O. When we talk about human desires, then we may term those 'right' and 'wrong' directives as morals.

Evolution wants us to reproduce. Evolution is our master, is has created us, and it has created us so that we actually want to survive and reproduce. So, the primary human desire, is survival. (to dumb it down) Evolution knows best how to make us survive, society is the only way we can do it now, and so we desire social interaction.\

So, we want to live, and we want to be in a society. The 'Right' thing to do with this in mind, is to find a social moral system which allows both of these prime directives to be maintained as best as possible. The best possible way that this can be done, would be the Absolute Right. But we are restricted to circumstances, and as such we have to approach morality from where we are, and try to achieve the bost possible LOCAL maxima for the moral code.

If we are isolated in a tribe, the moral code would be different to that of a global community. (in the absolute best moral code sense) I am sure one of those two communities would be more effective at achieving the human desires (survival, social interaction), but you can't expect the tribe to adopt the morals of a global community, and you can't expect a global community to adopt the morals of a tribe. The 'Local Maxima' is different to the 'Global Maxima' (Using fitness terrain terms, not meaning to refer to tribal (local) and global communities)

So are you starting to see where our slight difference is Russ? We have essentially the same view I think, but I really do believe perspective is important, because although there is an 'Umtiate best' social construct, it doesn't mean everyone can achieve it.

In fact, what the best moral code is, is going to be an almost impossible answer to find, because of all of the variable. Just like any other science equation, there are variables. How big the community is, how many communities there are around it, what their moral systems are etc. These MUST be considered, because there is a possibility that the best social construct is a tribal system, where you have one system full of altruists, with 2 neighbouring selfish tribes, with 4 neighbouring...somethings outside that etc...

I know we all think that a global community with a solid standing set or morals is the best social construct...but we could be wrong.

More likely, we are just entering another Local Maxima. Trying to find the best social construct, given the situation we are in.

That's perspective.

Royce

Aug11-03, 10:26 AM

The only absolute morale code that make any sense to me is that code which best insures that my offspring survive. I would freely give up my life to insure that my children survive. However, if the situation was such that my children could not survive without my survival then my personal survival becomes parmount. I must survive so that even if my children don't I will still be around to make more and then attempt to insure their survival.

My next priority is that my tribe or immediate community survive for it's survival better insures my children's and my survival. Whatever moral code my community adapts to insure its survival as a viable productive society must become my moral code or I must find a society within which I can accept it's morale code as absolute.

Next is my state's or nation's survival and it's absolute moral code that insures all of the above.

Last is the global absolute morale code.

Would I give my life up for the global society, for all of humanity?
Only within the context of all of the above.

Is this the absolute morale code we are seeking? I don't think so but it is the only one that makes any difference to me. I don't think that there is any universal absolute right or wrong or moral code possible in a multinational, multicultural world.

It becomes then situational morales and ethics; a phrase and thought that I personally detest. I am, however, hindered by the knowlege that all of the above applies to every individual alive on this planet and what makes my or my children's survival any more important than his or her's? It is only my perspective that makes my survuval more important than yours, my right to life more right than your right to life.

Another God

Aug11-03, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Royce
Is this the absolute morale code we are seeking? I don't think that there is any universal absolute right or wrong or moral code possible in a multinational, multicultural world.I think it is most likely that multinational arrangements, and multiculturalism will need to end before the global moral system can come to exist.

"Oh thats terrible" i hear a lot of people out there say (probably not people in here, but I can guarantee people 'out there' are) and so I reply: "deal with it."

It becomes then situational morales and ethics; a phrase and thought that I personally detest. I am, however, hindered by the knowlege that all of the above applies to every individual alive on this planet and what makes my or my children's survival any more important than his or her's? It is only my perspective that makes my survuval more important than yours, my right to life more right than your right to life. 100% agreeance. Just as long as each individual recognises that the societies we are in are there to help us achieve our own individual primary goals (the most important ones anyway - Survival and survival of our kids), then there shouldn be a good enough deal of stability in our societies.

Of course, there will always be the one psycho, or the odd person who doesn't understand, or who wants more than their fair share etc... And it is up to the Moral System of the societies to deal with that abberation in the best way possible.

Royce

Aug11-03, 05:05 PM

Of course thus along with survival the next priority is law and order. I think survival is first but we need law and order to help secure survival, personal and societal.
Next,I think is food and shelter or maybe thats more primal than law and order then trade and commerse. This way we build a morale code to cover every aspect of our lives. Is is absolute? Yes to our society and culture. Is it universal? No unless our society is so large and powereful that it can conquer the world and impose our absolute morales on the rest of the world.

One way or another to have a universal absolute morale code we would have to have one universal global society and culture. Is it right?
Only if it's your culture that is the strongest. It's Machivellian but I'm afraid its true

Another God

Aug12-03, 03:20 AM

Originally posted by Royce
Of course thus along with survival the next priority is law and order. I think survival is first but we need law and order to help secure survival, personal and societal.
Well survival is the prime directive, law is the embodiment of the 'ethics' that allow survival to be achieved, and order is how the ethical standards enforce themselves.

Next,I think is food and shelter or maybe thats more primal than law and order then trade and commerse. This way we build a morale code to cover every aspect of our lives.The law (ethics) should cover how food/shelter etc is accessible to each individual. Food, shelter, possesions and societal relations are all necessary things in our life, and so are all governed to some extent (Monitored? Regulated) by the ethical system. So the Law and Order concept doesn't really fit into this ladder you are trying to construct IMO, but rather it is the guidelines as to how every rung of this ladder should be reachable by any member of the given society.

Is is absolute? Yes to our society and culture. Is it universal? No unless our society is so large and powereful that it can conquer the world and impose our absolute morales on the rest of the world. One way or another to have a universal absolute morale code we would have to have one universal global society and culture. Is it right?
Only if it's your culture that is the strongest. It's Machivellian but I'm afraid its true I don't really like your use of the word absolute here. I don't think it should be thought of as absolute at all. This is precisely the way of thinking which I am trying to break out of. I believe that there is an absolute best morality (in any given situation), but it is unlikely that any society has them. As such, any Law (ethical system) should be constantly under self-revision.

As for the universal morals, I assume you ar refering to morals which everyone is under: Well, I still disagree that they ar universal, or absolute. They are only the morals selected by the members of the society/the powers at hand. The one defining characteristics of the Absolute Best Moral System (of any given situation) is that it provides the greatest stability for the society presented in the situation.

It is unlikely that any ethical system ever created by Humans has come close to that Absolute Best, and it is even less likely that a culture which conquers the world will have such appropriate ethics.

Here is an important conception: The members of a society, need not be humans. Humans may be the fundamental units of Families, Work Places, Social Groups, and even states....but in the Global COmmunity, it is possible to have a central government which only has the task of administrating the ethical system which guides the countries of the world (where the countries are the members of that society.) The ethics outlined in the Law of the Global Government may not even mention humans.

This system is much more likely to provide a stable global community, than having a single government trying to unite all of the people of the world, and then trying to formulate ethical guidelines for all of them.

If instead we have individual 'states' which rule the ethical guidelines of the people within that state, and then having the global politics guide the ethical guidelines of the states (how the states should interact etc), then people are freeer to move to states which have individual ethics more closely in line with their own ethical system. (Which makes more sense than trying to tell every person in the world "You all must be Identical!")

Iacchus32

Aug12-03, 04:53 AM

Originally posted by Mattius_
An objective question from an objective person... You be the judge... Yes, but if we die will it matter? And if it does, then at some point we should ask, "Why are we here?"

Another God

Aug12-03, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, but if we die will it matter? And if it does, then at some point we should ask, "Why are we here?" I don't know whether I should ignore this and hope comments like this go away, or if I should explain to you exactly why such comments are inappropriate.

It all depends on whether you are just being a smart arse or actually think what you said is meaningful.

Royce

Aug12-03, 08:10 AM

AG, I agree with all that you said in your reply. By using the words absolute and universal I was trying to show that such codes are only absolute and universal to the members of that society. Our codes become so ingrained in us that we think of them as absolutely right and universally applicable when in reality they are only our codes.
I was pointing out the fallability of that thinking that you and I are both trying to get away from.

It is this thinking that leads to conflict and strife and eventually to war. It is this thinking that is at fault not the hypothesis of absolute universal right and wrong morale code that Russ was proposing and I was disagreeing with and that I don't think is possible.

Another God

Aug12-03, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Royce
It is this thinking that leads to conflict and strife and eventually to war. It is this thinking that is at fault not the hypothesis of absolute universal right and wrong morale code that Russ was proposing and I was disagreeing with and that I don't think is possible.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but it appears to me as if we have 3 people here who all understand this conception of ethics, and believe that it is an accurate model of what ethics actually is, and also how it needs to be understood so as to enable us, the human race, to manipulate things to as to improve the world. (Those three people at least being Royce, Russ and myself...??) We all seem to understand it on essentially identical criteria, and we all agree on it.

Now, why don't other people get this? Are we wrong? Are we missing something? Or does everyone else understand it, but I just haven't discussed it with them enough to see their understanding?

Why do people defend the "Immorality" of killing as a universal truth without mention of the situation? Why do people talk of rape and taking slaves as if they have some inner characteristic in them which defines them as evil?

And even better, why do these people cringe/laugh at you, when you challenge these most fundamental of assumptions?

(PS: I agree with the conclusions, for our situation at large, but why don't people even allow themselves to reason it out, instead prefering to start with the conclusion and then stay at the conclusion?)

Royce

Aug12-03, 12:39 PM

Ag, I think it is, as I mentioned in my previous post, because our morale and ethic codes become so ingrained in us that they become obvious truths that require no thinking. "It has always been this way." "It has always been the way that we do it." "This is the right way and the only right way." We are taught this since birth and we see it happen every day and we see no other way done or even hear spoken of another way than ridicule.

It becomes a "given" a truth without thought or question, a foregone conclusion. As children we are not allowed to think or say anything that is contrary to what is the accepted right and wrong. Can't you just hear your parents telling, yelling, asking; "Don't you know the difference between right and wrong? Whats the matter with you? Have you hit your head? Are you crazy? I thought I taught you better than that."

No wonder we have such a deep need for an absolute morale code, an absolute truth, an absolute right and wrong.

russ_watters

Aug12-03, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Royce
Ag, I think it is, as I mentioned in my previous post, because our morale and ethic codes become so ingrained in us that they become obvious truths that require no thinking. "It has always been this way." "It has always been the way that we do it." "This is the right way and the only right way." We are taught this since birth and we see it happen every day and we see no other way done or even hear spoken of another way than ridicule. Thats largely true, but it comes from religion. I specifically noted that a scientific approach to morality does not require religion and it CANNOT work under such a dogma.

Religion is in many ways a trap and a cloud.Correct me if I am wrong here, but it appears to me as if we have 3 people here who all understand this conception of ethics, and believe that it is an accurate model of what ethics actually is, and also how it needs to be understood so as to enable us, the human race, to manipulate things to as to improve the world. (Those three people at least being Royce, Russ and myself...??) We all seem to understand it on essentially identical criteria, and we all agree on it.

Now, why don't other people get this? Are we wrong? Are we missing something? Or does everyone else understand it, but I just haven't discussed it with them enough to see their understanding? We(the 3 you listed) agree on the underlying structure and utility and disagree soley on the implication (and the application of the word "absolute").

Generally, (as Royce indicated in the quote above) people look at morality from the opposite direction from us and this is why they don't see it our way. If you start with absolute morality from religion, which is where most people get it, you end up with all the contradictions (relative absolute morality for example) and problems of both schools of thought (relativism vs absolutism). Though I argued it from the absolutist side, I think it can be successfully argued that even relative moralities will converge if approached through a scientific process. The difference is anthropic: WHY do they converge?

One of the problems with morality is that it is in practice dogmatic. Even relative morality is passed down to the kids from the parents. And thats where the problems come in: people don't stop to THINK if their morality makes sense.

I may be idealistic, but I thik if people were taught in school to approach morality scientifically, it would eliminate most of the problems of both relative and absolute morality.