Are the moraly right the victors of war?

[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.

 

[russ_watters]

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

That is precisely my point.

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

Certainly. I think what you are missing is that our laws (the US Constitution, for example) is not the universal moral law, but our latest effort to approximate it. Similarly, there have been a good half dozen attempts to explain gravity. They weren't all the same, were they? When flaws were found, the theory was adjusted to be a better approximation of how gravity really works - just like the progress we've made with figuring out morality.

think morality is purely a human intellectual invention, a conceptual formulation devised to characterize behaviors which are perceived as threatening or impeding to one’s existence and development.It is borne of our will to survive and thrive, and our desire to get others to acknowledge our “right” to survive and thrive.[emphasis added]

In other words, its a product of our evolution, right? Wouldn't that mean that morality is part of the scientific theory of evolution?

What I think is interesting is that as a person becomes more conscious and less self-centered, they become more “moral.”

So do I. I think that's a biproduct of the fact that what we do to others does come back to us. It takes intelligence to see past the immediate consequences and predict the secondary consequences of our actions.

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

I'm a little thin on cobra behavior, but I suspect that their interaction is far less complex than human interaction, making such displays work in their case where they wouldn't work in ours.

I think every animal (including humans) have some sort of moral sense and the only purpose of it is to serve the prosperity of the species. So the actual form of the morality is ultimately dictated by the species genome and has nothing to do with absolute laws (I think morality can be called "absolute" only within the species just because all individuals have almost identical DNA).

So, morality is a product of our evolution? Thats only very slightly different than my view. My view is that that evolution moves in a specific direction. (good first post, btw - welcome to the site)

no, i am definitely not saying hitler's morality is one that is approved by the masses...

That wasn't my question, Kerrie. I know we are in agreement that Hitler was morally wrong. My question is does that matter? If morality is truly personal, then neither you or I can tell Hitler he's morally wrong. If he thought he was right, then he was - and we should have stayed out of WWII (Atlantic).

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

There have also been a number of different theories on gravity. So what? That does not mean all of them are right. If that's what you're saying, then you must also concede Hitler was right.

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

How do you know there is a law of gravity? The evidence to me suggests that there is. But ultimately, I don't know - and neither does anyone else. And yes, I agree that that is unsatisfying.

How do you know that yours works better than his? Because you said so.

No, no, no! Hitler put his morality into practice and it failed! That's how we know it doesn't work. Just like the competing theories of gravity.

I wonder if you can really expect others, such as Hitler, to give a response different from yours, to the effect that they recognize that their morality is inferior than yours.

I don't think Hitler was sane, so I don't consider his opinion on the matter relevant. However, if we asked Marx the same question - if he was intellectually honest, he'd say that his theory failed. But don't be all that surprised if he didn't - many, many scientists are unable to admit their theory (their life's work) was a failure.

I certainly cannot say in an objective manner that your morality, about which I know nothing, is better than Hitler's.

My morality is similar to the Judeo-Christian one and compatible with American Democracy. Beyond that, if you ask me specific questions...

Because of Hitler's action in WWII, you, whom I do not know, de facto have more morality than him, whatever morality might mean and whoever you might be.

I appreciate you're giving me the benefit of the doubt. For what its worth, I've never killed anyone on purpose or accidentally.

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

Not quite. To some people, everything, including morality and gravity are rules handed down by God. I am not one of those people. If there is a God, then I'd agree though. I accept that it may be that "they just are," but I can't say I'm comfortable with that. I guess that makes me a skeptical(hopeful?) Christian.

If Hitler had won the war, would this not have been a good thing for the people in Germany, as a whole?

I don't remember the exact quote, but it went something like 'first they came for the gypsies and I did nothing, then they came for...and then they came for me.' No, I don't think a German victory in WWII would have been good even for Germany.

Are you denying the morality of Hitler because he lost the war, or because of your perceived justifications for the war?

His justifications and actions. It has nothing to do with whether he won or lost.

Are you judging his morality on the basis of the justification that he used to motivate this followers...

Largely, yes - that's pretty much all we know of his morality.

This absolute morality of yours, is it attainable by humans at our current degree of evolution, or are we still far off in the future?

Excellent question (at least you understand me, even if you disagree). I don't believe that moral perfection is possible for humans because we are an imperfect species. But we can get very, very close.

Will our species ever reach this degree of morality, or will we die out or evolve into another species before attaining it?

We will continue to evolve, of course, but I'll leave the question of whether we become another species to biologists.

Maybe I need to adjust an earlier statement though - I said we're the only species who the total picture of morality is relevant to. Maybe that should be most relevant to.

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

Maybe you'll consider this a cop out, but... Morality: "2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct." That's as good a definition as any I've seen (except maybe instead of "ideas" put "rules" or "theories".

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

 

[Integral]

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

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

 

[dschouten]

Maybe you'll consider this a cop out, but... Morality: "2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct." That's as good a definition as any I've seen (except maybe instead of "ideas" put "rules" or "theories".

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

 

[Kerrie]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

The US is a multicultural society. So I'd say it is a conclusion more evident for Americans than for most others because of that fact.

Others have suggested that morality is personal or cultural. If Australians (for example) were of one culture and completely isolated from other cultures, that would be fine. But then, wouldn't that also make it absolute? If your culture is the only one that you know of that exists, then your way is, by default, the only way. That was my point earlier about seeing no difference between a "functional" absolute and just a plain old absolute. In our world today though, there are no major isolated cultures. If nothing else, the UN (and trade) connects us.

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

If two cultures ever have to interact, then you must do exactly that. Why do you think there is ever a debate as to whether or not China should get MFN trading status? Our morality and theirs (theirs is changing to be more like ours) are incompatible and one must be right while the other is wrong. edit: Or if we accept both can be right, we accept a position of hypocrisy.

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

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

Which animals have ideas on right or wrong? Does a bear muse about killing a rabbit?

Must a bear understand gravity for gravity to act on a bear?

How are ideas 'hard-wired'?

Its not so much the ideas, but the actions that are "hard-wired". Take those actions and apply the moral rules and you can decide whether the "hard-wired" actions are moral or immoral regardless of whether the bear even knows those ideas exist (I suspect he does not).

You are contradicting yourself

I don't think I am, except maybe that I don't always adequately separate the ideas from the actions (I'm trying). But then, the rest of you don't either. That (to me) is the crux of the probem.

i don't recall using the term "personal" for morality, but more subjective...

You used the word "individual." I don't see a difference, but if there is one, by all means explain it to me.

Hitler's morality was "right" at the time he was in power only because he had power over masses...

So, might ("power") makes right? That means if I go out and kill someone that I am morally right because they couldn't stop me? Yikes.

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

edit: crap, editing error. working on it...

either you are getting flustered in your posting because you have several members here challenging you, or there is a failure to communicate in this forum.

I'm not flustered - I'm quite comfortable arguing this with 8 people at once (as long as I don't piss off my boss). There is a failure to communicate though: the original poster has stated that the question was misworded. At this point, that's irrelevant though. We've moved past it.

I think I made my point quite clear, as others seem to understand it too, but I am not understanding yours since you ask me a question, and I answer it concisely.

Your answers are concise and easy to understand, but they don't answer the question I asked. I understand your opinion just fine. What you haven't said yet is why your opinion is acceptable. WHY is it ok for the same actions to be right or wrong depending on who views them? Why was it (or wasn't it?) acceptable for us to enter WWII?

 

[russ_watters]

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

"Are the morally right the victors of war?"
take the question literally, and in the example of hitler, he thought he was morally right, but was not ultimately the victor of WWII. thus, i answered NO to the question.

Ok then - simple answer: yes (in this case). Why? Both you and I think Hitler was morally wrong. By implication, that makes his enemies morally right. Therefore in that case, the morally right won the war.

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

If it still matters, this is the first sentence of the first post:

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

The question in the title is worded backwards and h/she posted in post 13 (in response to you...)

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

In other words, does might make right? My answer is no. Right and wrong exist independently of who wins. And that's how this absolutism vs relativism debate started: the answer to the question for even an individual example depends on differing opinions on who was right and who was wrong.

 

[Prometheus]

Maybe you'll consider this a cop out, but... Morality: "2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct." That's as good a definition as any I've seen (except maybe instead of "ideas" put "rules" or "theories".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

I think I made my point quite clear... and I answer it concisely.

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

Simple. Clear. Concise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

Please attempt again to define reality [emphasis added].

I'll assume that's a typo.

This definition is far too imprecise, in my opinion.

Fair enough.

You defined reality as any (implying that there are multiple such systems and not just one) system of ideas, or rules, or theories.

Yes - and there clearly are mutliple such theories - just only one right one (or rather, complete one).

Ideas, rules, and theories about gravity are not gravity, and can have no influence on gravity itself.

Correct. The theory of gravity is not gravity, but rather a description of how gravity works. Similarly, any particular moral code is not moral conduct, but rather a description of conduct that is moral or immoral.

In like manner, your definition of morality can have no influence on absolute morality...

Also correct. I don't see the problem here. I have never stated that I know the one complete, correct theory. I think my moral code is close, but it is not complete.

Your definition uses any of a number of (the word 'any' is yours) subjective possibilities (ideas, rules, and theories are subjective).

The definition used the word "ideas," but I prefer the stronger(more scientific) words "rules" (laws) and "theories." The difference is minor.

edit: thinking about it a little more, the problem you have with my definition may be that it isn't specific enough and covers both ideas and conduct, which are separate pieces of the same issue. I would tend to agree. "Morality" is the overall subject we're discussing. But you can also separate "Moral conduct" from "moral theory." This seems to me to be a minor point of contention though.

Now, I am lost. You consider that what is the main point of difference here is our morality? Do you think that our moralities are incompatible? What might this mean? What does it possibly have to do with the economic purpose of granting MFN status?

The U.S. government has, in the past, made China's morality a trade issue. IE, fix your moral problems or we won't grant MFN status. Yes, our moralities are incompatible and the U.S. gov't (and the UN, btw) makes statements to that effect on a fairly regular basis.

Why must one be right while the other is wrong? This last question is most important to me. Why must one be right and one be wrong?

Good. That's the key question to me too. Why must one be right and the other be wrong? Because if the U.S. interacts with a country that does things we consider immoral and doesn't do anything about it, that makes us immoral. To put a finer point on it: to not challenge an act that you consider immoral means you are, through your actions, condonining it. That is the entire point of "never again." We, by our inaction, are culpable.

Two completely different cultures, and you say that one has a "right" morality and the other has a "wrong" morality? Which, in your opinion, is right?

In the case of specific actions of China vs the US? The US (and remember - the rest of the UN agrees) is right and China is wrong. How can I be so arrogant/presumptuous as to say that (the question everyone else is avoiding answering, themselves)? Ours works and theirs doesn't. Simple as that.

Is the morality of the one that is right perfect?

Certainly not.

If it is not perfect, how can it be right?

GPS works, yet the theory of Relativity is not perfect. GPS works because Einstein's Relativity is more right than Galileo's.

Right is an absolute term, not a relative one, such as 'more right'.

I never said our moral code is "right" - as in, 'absolutely perfect.' I said that in this specific case ours works and theirs doesn't. Therefore, their actions are wrong and their moral code is flawed. If ours isn't perfect, that means ours is flawed too - theirs is just more flawed than ours, just as Galileo's relativity is more flawed than Einstein's and a GPS tech would be wrong to try to use Galilean relativity when programming a GPS satellite since we know a better theory exists.

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