Are the moraly right the victors of war?

[Dayle Record]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Les Sleeth]

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

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

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

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

 

[dschouten]

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

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

That's my view as well. In any case, it is an unpopular view. Thats kinda strange to me though, because in the U.S., we're moving toward providing more aid to individuals (universal healthcare) while requiring less accountability for their actions (drug legalization). It seems bass ackwards to me.

It is my opinion that "morality", is a means by which a group of people protect their interests. Morality is imposed in order to protect property, or chattel, or a social system that works for the group. Things change, [emphasis added] and moralities change as well.

What changes? IMO, its the figuring out of morality and applying it to political theory that has enabled the rise of modern civilization. Hobbes and Locke are a biggie. For the simpler aspects of morality though, I think its easy to see that they have always been true. Murder is always wrong, for example (by definition, as someone else pointed out, but I mean the actions we call murder don't change much).

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

I had no idea that still went on. My boss is Mormon (though not funamentalist).

I just don't think that society can be governed by morality, it is just too loose of a term. Morality, is never applied where it really counts, to serve the needs of the planet as a whole. What would a planetary morality be?

I think the UN charter is a good start - we just need to make good on the promises it contains.

 

[russ_watters]

I think that I understand now. The Chinese are culturally flawed.

I told you it would be unpopular. Would it make you feel better to know I believe every culture contains flaws?

One of the things I consider great about the US its built-in capability for correcting such flaws through Constitutional Amendments. Its part of the reason the US currently has the oldest government in the world - something people often overlook.

This question is highly biased. Murder is wrong by definition in this country. If you were to ask how many people think that killing is wrong, I suspect that almost no one would agree.

'Is killing wrong?' is a poorly defined question. Yes, murder is wrong by definition, but the legal definition contains very specific criteria for actions that can be called murder. The question would have to be worded in such a way as to be a description of a specific action, not just by using the word "murder."

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

I think it is due in part to the cultural differences including morality, but clearly its more complicated than that. But I don't think its a coincidence that the countries that employ the most modern political theories (a reflection of their moral code) are the ones that are the most successful. There are examples everywhere of countries with underdeveloped moralities that are holding them back. Countries that subjugate women, for example.

 

[Les Sleeth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Useless]

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

Don't you think it's a circularity?

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

 

[dschouten]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Les Sleeth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dschouten]

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

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

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

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

Well, as a moralist, your position makes perfect sense.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Les Sleeth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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