Are the moraly right the victors of war?

[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).

 

[russ_watters]

The U.S. government has, in the past, made China's morality a trade issue. IE, fix your moral problems or we won't grant MFN status.

This probably deserves a source. http://www.brookings.edu/comm/PolicyBriefs/Pb050/pb50.htm it is:

President Clinton's 1993 executive order, which formally linked renewal of China's MFN to human rights improvements, imposed conditions which focused mainly on individual political prisoners: accounting for imprisoned dissidents, refraining from their use in prison labor, and allowing the International Committee of the Red Cross to evaluate their condition.

Long article, I didn't read all of it (yet). I post it for that quote alone for a fact reference - its 2/3 of the way down on the page.

 

[Prometheus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dschouten]

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

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

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

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

 

[Prometheus]

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

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

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

Well said.

 

[Kerrie]

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

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

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

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

in theory, you have a valid point, however, what happens when there becomes one source (the UN as an example) for setting these principles for the entire world? you could have totalitarianism eventually~

A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).

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

 

[loseyourname]

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

 

[Kerrie]

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

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

 

[loseyourname]

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

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

 

[wtfc]

dschouten, welcome to slave morality!

Morality is SUBJECTIVE.

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

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

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

 

[Useless]

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

I think it's not the matter of complexity and the difference can be easily explained. A human is virtually unable to inflict a fatal injury with bare hands, while one successful bite of cobra would kill. That's why fighting is moral for humans and immoral for cobras (and for most animals with lethal "weapons").

So, morality is a product of our evolution? Thats only very slightly different than my view. My view is that that evolution moves in a specific direction.

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

good first post

Thank you.

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

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

 

[Kerrie]

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

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

Yeeeeeees! For the discussion in this thread, I don't care why it exists, and I don't care what it looks like. I'm just trying to show that it does (must) exist.

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

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

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

 

[dschouten]

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

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

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

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

 

[Useless]

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

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

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

 

[dschouten]

If morality was (once) developed by humans...

Who said "once"? Not I.

 

[Useless]

Who said "once"? Not I.

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

 

[dschouten]

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

This assumes that the advancements we are all witnesses to coincide with human developments in morality. I don't know that this is true. A complete idiot who has no understanding of any modern technologies, who cannot read, write or perform any of the tasks we associate with advanced development, can definitely be a more moral person than the most refined contemporary intellectual.

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

 

[Les Sleeth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[loseyourname]

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

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

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

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

 

[Useless]

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

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