Are the moraly right the victors of war?

[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 I am 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' referring 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 I am 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' referring 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 separated 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 can't 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 that's 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 I am 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' referring 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, let's 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, let's 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

 

[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

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, that's 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 realize 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 ) 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"...

 

[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?

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.