Are the moraly right the victors of war?

[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 ). 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.

 

[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?