Are the moraly right the victors of war?

[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 [Broken] 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.

 

[dschouten]

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.

I would agree with you on this one. I have spoken imprecisely. When speaking of developed morality, I mean to say that morality is not genetic - its not hardwired. That's not to say that morality is developing per se, but that it isn't just the next mutation for an ape.

 

[Les Sleeth]

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.

I am familiar with and enjoy Shermer's thinking. If we believe some feeling is behind our moral code, then I suppose animals might be able to experience that. I've been very impressed, for instance, with the care and sharing observed among elephants. Of course, that isn't morality, which I still don't believe is exhibited anywhere except with humans.

 

[loseyourname]

When you look at hominid primates, though, it really seems that they do live by a certain moral code. They not only appear to feel wronged when the code is violated, but they even punish the violators until they apologize.

 

[Useless]

That's not to say that morality is developing per se, but that it isn't just the next mutation for an ape.

I see. Personally I'm now under impression of Pinker's "Langauge Instinct". And it seems tempting to apply the same methodology to the morality. According to Chomsky's theory language abilities are hardwired, that's why all languages are intrinsically the same, no one of them is superior to another, and language has not to be taught – it just emerges during child development (it's all very similar to characteristics of morality).

Maybe like a language module there exists a moral module in the brain? It would explain universality and invariability of human morality and why certain brain injuries make people behave immorally.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Our cousins the chimps are capable of tactics and trickery, as are even our much more distant relatives the baboons. Perhaps we should look for the evolution of morality to the growing awareness and future direction of hominids who already have these sneaky pete capabilities and now have to evaluate and model them in their minds.

 

[russ_watters]

...but the applicability of morality to other "lifeforms" (spoken in true Star-Tekian fashion) is a dubious extension at best.

I'll certainly grant you that. That one is largely a product of my mind, by which I mean I've never read a paper on it or anything. Agree or disagree though, I think its something that there is some evidence for and something to consider.

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.

My point regarding other species was that I think intelligent beings will come to the same conclusions about morality. Since there are no other species with human intelligence (that we know of), I started to apply that to lower species, and that's where I got my ideas on morality manifesting more the more intelligent a being was. To me though, that implies universal law. Lemme ask you this: is the law of supply and demand a universal law? Its not physics, and economics is a human invention (or is it?), but I would expect any intelligent being that starts to use money will come to the same conclusion about supply and demand. That, to me, makes it a universal law. Math: Plus, minus, times. None of these have a physical manifestation in the universe (though, they are used to describe how the universe works), yet we encoded them into a message meant for aliens. How can we be sure math is a 'universal language'? Isn't it just a human construct that functions only as a tool to help humans understand the natural world?

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.

How can we "mess with it"?

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.

Hobbes' work was outstanding, but I don't think his "state of nature" ever even existed in nature. There is too much organization.

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.

Maybe - I'm trying to be precise, but I can sometimes be sloppy. Especially when talking with 8 people at once. I really do think part of it is that these things seem contradicotry to others because they think about them in different ways. Kinda like Relativity.

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.

As I said above, that's fine - that's largely a product of my mind and the extension of morality to other species doesn't matter all that much in practical terms anyway. I do think my position on that is justified - if somewhat underdeveloped.

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.

Those two statements are not talking about the same thing. We investigate gravity to figure out how it works. We don't stop at Einstein's theory even though it works extremely well because there are unanswered questions on the mechanism . But what scientists don't do is ask "who or what created it?"

In the case of morality being universal principle, force, influence . . . how are we to test it?

I've only barely touched on this - its an important question and part of why its so hard for people to accept a scientific approach. The testing is in the application. I said Hitler's morality (if any) was wrong because it didn't work. By that I mean he applied it to his country and tried to apply it to the world (I guess he was an absolutist ;) ) and it failed. He lost WWII. Beyond that, it had structural and logical problems - he had to lie to make people follow it. Thats evidence of flaws.

Now, Hitler's rule lasted what, 20 years? The USSR took 80 years or so to collapse under its own weight. Thats a long time to wait for test results, and the results aren't always unequivocal. The US has been going for 200+ years. So far, our little experiment (its been called that) appears to be working. But at some point, I expect we will fail as well.

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.

Look at intraspecies behavior. You seem to be thinking preditor vs prey. Look at how animals treat their young (why even bother feeding your offspring?) and how they interact with others of the same species (and their mates). Higher level primates have highly complex community organization and behavior.

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.

Yes, and as I said in the vegan thread, that is what separates us from them: our actions are not bound to our genetic programming as theirs are. We've grown beyond that. But here's a question - do you have to think about an action for it to be moral/immoral?

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.

Basically, they can't think about it so it doesn't apply to them - that's more or less what I said except for the caveat above (and the behavioral complexity thing)... That's why I think you can apply it to instinctive behavior.

Even with that, we haven’t escaped what is needed to make it science, which is the empirical aspect of observation.

Yes, that is why its so tough to treat it scientifically. What makes it worse is that the observations themselves are subject to interpretation.

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.

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.

I like it.

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'm going to have to nitpick and defend myself here - now your asking for the specifics of a system of morality. That is a different question than asking what morality in general is. 'What is a theory?' is different than 'what is the theory of gravity?' I like your particular system - your particular moral theory (code). But that has nothing at all to do with the definition of "morality."

The reason I didn't want to talk about specific moral codes is because then the argument becomes 'whose moral theory is right?' when all I'm really interested in is what is morality and is there a universal one. I use Hitler as the example because he's the default evil. If we use abortion as the example, then the focus is on abortion and not the overall concept "what is morality?" (though the pro-choice position is interpreted by some as relativism)

Your "best soil" morality bridges the gap though. It both defines morality by telling us what a good theory should accomplish and works as a basis for figuring out/describing that theory.

 

[russ_watters]

Something I've forgotten before: the main reason I avoid the question of where the laws come from is I want to avoid making this a discussion on religion. Morality is tough enough without clouding it by removing all logic and reason. Whether ordained by God or just "is", gravity works the same - and so does morality.

continuing:

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?

Ethics and morals are pretty much the same thing - ethics is the moral code or the study of the moral code. Definition.

The problem with separating individual with group morality is that individuals are members of groups, thus the ethics/morality of the group is a reflection (composite) of the ethics/morality of the individuals. And some groups, countries in particular, have a single individual speaking for them.

...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~

You could. And that's a danger that exists in both relativism and absolutism - its the key issue in building a government and the key issue the U.S. dealt with in setting up ours. The best we can do is set up a government that makes that tougher. But dictators want to be dictators - its a component of their personality/morality and they will try if given the opportunity.

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".

I agree with all of that.

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)?

A rock doesn't have actions - it doesn't do anything on its own. A sea urchin, iirc, is a predator (so are some plants, btw)...

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).

I would say that even if a mentally retarded person doesn't know killing another person for no reason is wrong, its still wrong if they do it. What differs is whether or not they can be held accountable for their actions. If they can't understand them, they aren't held as accountable - but the actions could still be wrong.

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?

Opposite ends of the morality spectrum? Our only disagreement is on whether morality is universally applicable. The specifics of our moral codes are likely virtually identical. If I took a poll on how many people think murder is wrong, would everyone say yes? Stealing? Adultury? Child abuse? There would be a lot of agreement on these issues (and a lot of others) across cultural boundaries. The only disagreement is to whether or not I'm justified in telling someone else that its wrong and punishing them for doing it.

A cannibal on an isolated Pacific island might think that cannibalism is ok, but I submit that the reason he's still wearing a loincloth and hunting with a spear is his morality is preventing him from progressing beyond that.

This one's going to be unpopular: China was culturally and technologically more advanced/developed than Europe and had a denser population for thousands of years. Why then, did the industrial revolution start there? Why did it start in England, a relatively backwards, sparsely populated (compared to China) country? I submit that eastern morality has flaws that prevented further growth.

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.

Yes or no: if you were placed in Hitler's shoes in 1935, would you have executed the plans he had in place?

We do not have a duty to stop him because of your[emphasis added] definition of morality.

?? My moral code states that if you consort with someone who is acting immorally and you do nothing to change it, you are being immoral. Maybe your code doesn't say that, but mine does. And recall: "never again." The UN charter contains that piece of my moral code.

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.

It is somewhat circular/tautological: do people reject the Moral Imperative because of guilt that they aren't following it or do they have guilt therefore they start following the Moral Imperative. I honestly don't know which. I'm just speculating.

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?

Not at all. No scientist ever thinks he has the "Final Theoy," yet that doesn't stop them from saying previous theories are wrong. I don't have to know everything to know some people know less than me.

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.

If placed in his shoes in 1935, my actions would have resulted in roughtly 100 million less deaths than his. No, I don't think its at all presumptuous to say my morality is better than his and it doesn't make me feel guilty to say it.

You claim that you are on the right track to the perfection of morality. On what basis do you make this claim?

This is starting to get redundant. Like I said several times before: mine works (so far) and his didn't.

How can you claim to known that you are on the right track, when you claim that your undertanding is imperfect?

The same way any scientists knows that: the evidence shows the theory works.

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.

Well here's the thing: others tend to agree with me on the specifics of the code. Billions of people are living by a very, very similar code to mine - and virtually everyone in the world, by way of the UN Charter, is subject to a very, very similar code. All I'm saying is that the universally (to humans) applied morality in the UN Charter isn't just there for reasons of practicality. Its not just a functional absolute: its a real absolute. Thats not that big of a claim.

Are you religious, and is this a religious argument?

Reasonable question - often discussions like this are shrouded religious arguments. I was raised Presbyterian (protestant). Today, I go to church on holidays and when my mother has a band concert. I have serious issues with organized religion, but still (barely) consider myself christian. Being that I was raised Presbyterian, a lot of my moral code can be found in the religion. But I've grown considerably beyond that and I do really believe that you can figure out the moral code without having it handed to you by religion. In fact, I think those who do figure it out on their own are better off than those who just plain accept it because their parents told them to. No, this is not 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.

Now wait a minute - as I said before, I'm specifically trying to avoid going into the specifics of my moral code. I won't discuss terrorism, abortion, Robin-Hoodism, drugs, or any of the other controversial moral issues we see around us today. I am not judging myself to be better than anyone else here (except the default evil, of course - Hitler). All I'm saying is that there is one code, applicable universally.

Your tone is slightly aggressive and unnecessary - I am not judging your morality. I don't even know what it is.

 

[russ_watters]

This may require expansion:

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?

Not at all. No scientist ever thinks he has the "Final Theoy," yet that doesn't stop them from saying previous theories are wrong. I don't have to know everything to know some people know less than me.

There certainly are cases where right and wrong are not clear. Abortion is one of them (to me). For that reason, I'm pro choice. Pro choice means I'll leave it up to each individual and their personal moral code. (please don't turn this into an argument over abortion) My moral code says you can't have an abortion after the 2nd trimester. But I'm not conviced that that's right - so I am for letting others decide for themselves. But here's the catch: some people are convinced that abortion after conception is wrong. To them, the Moral Imperative requires them to seek to make abortion illegal.

Anyway, the Hitler example is used because it is a case that is clear.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Your "best soil" morality bridges the gap though. It both defines morality by telling us what a good theory should accomplish and works as a basis for figuring out/describing that theory.

I have to admit morality isn't one of my interests. I got interested in your ideas about it being universal (and therefore metaphysical). My personal approach to being "good" is to learn to feel it, and be less self-centered. I find it more simple and natural to just be sincere, because with that I am naturally better in all the ways people call "moral," and so don't have to bother about all the complexities involved in deciding the proper morality.

I quoted you above because I wonder if you've read Charles Peirce? That, like your earlier statement about deciding morality by "what works," is pure pragmatism, my all-time favorite philosophy (outside of my own :tongue2:). Pragmatism is the only classic-type philosophy America can lay claim to as exclusively ours. One of Peirce's goals with pragmatism was to see if he could help move the typically rationalistic approach taken in philosophy toward being more empirical -- he called for a "scientific metaphysics." Anyway, he proposed that in action, the veracity of an idea can be tested. It's been awhile since I read him, but I've boiled down what I understood to simply "what works."

That idea isn't as simple to apply as it might first seem because often something appears to work in the short term, but down the road (and the "road" might involve centuries) proves itself not to work overall.

 

[Prometheus]

This one's going to be unpopular: China was culturally and technologically more advanced/developed than Europe and had a denser population for thousands of years. Why then, did the industrial revolution start there? Why did it start in England, a relatively backwards, sparsely populated (compared to China) country? I submit that eastern morality has flaws that prevented further growth.

I think that I understand now. The Chinese are culturally flawed. That is why they did not lead the world into the industrial revolution. They cannot claim that the devastating invasions over the great wall that dominated China for most of the past 1,000 years (every dynasty but the Ming came over the great wall) is a mitigating excuse, because this is merely further evidence that the northern invaders were morally advanced.

I have a question. Would you say that Genghis Khan was one of the most moral men who ever lived? After all, no individual person who ever lived did more for his people, and no individual ever left a greater legacy of power and influence for his descendents.

Our only disagreement is on whether morality is universally applicable. The specifics of our moral codes are likely virtually identical. If I took a poll on how many people think murder is wrong, would everyone say yes?

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. Most people in the world think that killing is not wrong, except under certain circumstances. The United States has more than 100,000 people in Iraq now who are engaged in killing, and I suspect that a poll a year ago would have showed that most people considered it good.

A cannibal on an isolated Pacific island might think that cannibalism is ok, but I submit that the reason he's still wearing a loincloth and hunting with a spear is his morality is preventing him from progressing beyond that.

This brings me back to my original point. I cannot come close to agreeing with your viewpoint on morality, because I cannot come close to understanding what you mean by morality. 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.

Given the usage of the word morality that you are promoting, I think that I had best drop the word. I find no value in it, yet it is very confusing because it sounds so much like another word that I use with the same pronounciation and spelling.

 

[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.