Are the moraly right the victors of war?

  • Thread starter Thread starter devil-fire
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the idea that victors of wars are often perceived as morally right, a notion challenged by the complexities of morality and historical context. Participants argue that winning does not equate to being morally correct, citing examples like World War II, where the Nazis' defeat does not absolve their actions. The conversation explores the subjective nature of morality, suggesting that what is deemed "right" can vary significantly across cultures and eras. Some argue that morality is a construct used to justify actions in war, while others assert that there are universal moral principles that transcend individual beliefs. The debate touches on the implications of moral relativism, with concerns that it could lead to societal chaos if everyone defined morality differently. Ultimately, the consensus leans toward the idea that strength and resources, rather than moral superiority, typically determine the outcomes of wars, highlighting the disconnect between moral claims and the realities of conflict.
devil-fire
it seems to me that the ones who win the wars turn out to be the moraly right

i remember talking about archers in history class in that they were vary effective in battle but they were a 'lesser' way to win the battle beause they required little skill to best a knight. sure enough, we don't care who has the skill and we don't care much about honor in war as long as it dosent violate any human rights conventions

there is a saying about world war 2, "if they won the war, we would all be speaking german". i think this also extends to (or maybe just refers to) the mentality that nazis would have been in the right if they won.

it makes sense that any system of morals that can beat out the last guys will be considered the right way to do things after a generation or 2



what do u guys think?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
devil-fire said:
there is a saying about world war 2, "if they won the war, we would all be speaking german". i think this also extends to (or maybe just refers to) the mentality that nazis would have been in the right if they won.

it makes sense that any system of morals that can beat out the last guys will be considered the right way to do things after a generation or 2

what do u guys think?
I don't think that old adage was meant to imply that the Germans would automatically be morally right. There is another adage that the winners write the history books. In that sense, someone can manipulate (or lie) about the history to make it seem like their side was morally right, but that doesn't make it morally right.

In fact, if one has to lie to make their side appear "better," that's pretty clear evidence that they aren't.
 
I would tend to agree with russ_waters and would even venture so far as to say that the victors of war tend, more often than not, to be in the morally 'right' position (and win the war because of it). "Evil may win battles, but good wins wars."

I argue in favor of this position by considering Von Clausewitz' arguments about the relation between total war and the strength of the combatants' will. More often than not, the defendant bears its very existence into war, and thereby is more strongly willed than the agressor. The defendant emerges the victor eventually through guerilla tactics and/or dogged persistence that outdoes any of military/political/monetary advantages the agressor may have gained by pursuing its objectives with the same tenacity.

Case-in-point: the American resolve has been considerable weakened by the death of some few hundred soldiers in Iraq. Yet by comparison, in WWII the Americans lost hundreds of thousands of young men and women whilst their resolve to continue the fight was only strengthened. I am not making a judgement on the Iraq 'phoney-war' (thats a whole other can of worms - and besides, it can hardly be called a war, it is more like a skirmish or brief foray), but I will say that if the situation was reversed, the will of the American people to suffer and even die for their nation's continued existence would be much stronger.
 
morality has nothing to do with determining right or wrong in war.

case in point: if there is no one to say you are wrong because you killed them, you could be considered morally right by lack of opposition.

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

you have to remember that morality is subjective - even down to the individual - and is not the generalization common among Western Ego born in the European medevial age.

In Hitler's mind, he thought his actions were moral. And in his mind, he was right.

It is subjective.
 
odersven said:
russ_watters,

you have to remember that morality is subjective - even down to the individual - and is not the generalization common among Western Ego born in the European medevial age.

In Hitler's mind, he thought his actions were moral. And in his mind, he was right.

It is subjective.
Don't be so stupid. If Hitler really thought he was 'morally right', then why did he go through such lengths to hide the Holocaust? Was it just for a bit of German fun?

Your sorry mixture of historical revisionism and moral relativism is complete hogwash.
 
odersven said:
case in point: if there is no one to say you are wrong because you killed them, you could be considered morally right by lack of opposition.
By the same token, when a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to see it, it doesn't make a sound. Ergo, physics is just a bunch of "Western Ego born in the European medevial age" so we don't have to accept it or the laws it imposes. What a tidy affair.

If I kill you, and nobody catches me, am I 'morally right'? That would be convenient.
 
To be fair, the tree falling thing depends entirely on how you define sound. If the waves themselves constitute sound, then the tree makes a sound. But if sound is the perception of the waves by an intelligent being, then it doesn't make a sound. I guess that's off-topic, though.

A better analogy would be to just use some obvious truth. If I insist that my hand is made of plastic, and even if I honestly believe my hand to be made of plastic, I'm wrong whether or not anyone argues with me.
 
dschouten, welcome to slave morality!

Morality is SUBJECTIVE.

Hitler did think he was right, he hid the holocaust because others thought it was immoral. SUBJECTIVE. Do I think he was right? No, but guess what? You can't kill 6 million Jews by yourself.

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.

You created your morality, and now it limits you - enjoy your self served slavery.
 
  • #10
You don't think Hitler was right to kill Jews? Does that not mean you would not kill a Jew simply because he was a Jew? Well jeez, welcome to slavery. That's one less possibility for your life.
 
  • #11
odersven said:
dschouten, welcome to slave morality!

Morality is SUBJECTIVE.

Hitler did think he was right, he hid the holocaust because others thought it was immoral. SUBJECTIVE. Do I think he was right? No, but guess what? You can't kill 6 million Jews by yourself.

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.

You created your morality, and now it limits you - enjoy your self served slavery.

you make a good point, but let's tone down the self-righteousness here :biggrin:
new ideas/thoughts are better accepted when coated in honey.

i absolutely see your point-hitler did believe he was "right", thus "moral" in his own perspective. as the question of this topic is posed, "are the morally right the victors of war?", we would have to answer a big fat NO because Hitler did not win WWII, despite how many innocent people lost their lives.
 
  • #12
for the points in this topic let's say that the moraly right or wrong is desided by the most people in the world. and also let's assume that if a person dosn't care, that they do not disagree with it.

so durring ww2 for example, most germans did not know the full extent of the genocide but many suspected and did not find it objectionable. if the nazis won the war do you think that those people would look back in retrospect and change their minds about right and wrong? would a world under nazi rule think it right or wrong?

note that history isn't the main subject of this topic (i for one generaly have a lack of knowledge in history). its just a good example i think i can refer to and know that everyone is basicly on the same page
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
Kerrie said:
you make a good point, but let's tone down the self-righteousness here :biggrin:
new ideas/thoughts are better accepted when coated in honey.

i absolutely see your point-hitler did believe he was "right", thus "moral" in his own perspective. as the question of this topic is posed, "are the morally right the victors of war?", we would have to answer a big fat NO because Hitler did not win WWII, despite how many innocent people lost their lives.


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

i think we can all agree on that point though
 
  • #14
when i say moraly right I am referring to the shared opinion of the most amount of people
 
  • #15
Yeah, I saw you had answered my question right after I posted, so I deleted the question.

In that case I would say in the long run the majority view is likely to prevail.

[edit]
To which I'd add that winning the minds of others is part of the struggle, a struggle that philosophy plays a role in.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
devil-fire said:
when i say moraly right I am referring to the shared opinion of the most amount of people
If we take WWII as an example, Hitler was able to quickly conquer a large number of people, but these people did not agree with their captors and most continued to oppose him until ultimately Hitler was overthrown. Also, many countries not yet conquered by Hitler opposed him. So, even though he was the victor, the shared opinion of the majority (according to your definition) would make the victor Germany/Hitler morally wrong.

If Hitler would have stopped before invading Russia, Germany would have held most of Europe and parts of N Africa.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
odersven said:
Morality is SUBJECTIVE.
You're talking about moral relativism. Its discussed in several other threads and it is, quite simply, wrong. What someone believes to be moral and immoral is largely irrelevant to the question of whether certain actions actually are or are not immoral. Morality is as absolute as the laws of physics, though just as difficult to figure out. But to put it simply, what is morally right is what works. Murder, for example, cannot be morally right because if it were and everyone were to do it, it would cause society to break down. That idea of morality doesn't work and is therefore flawed.

If taken to its logical conclusion, moral relativism means anarchy: no one is able to impose any morality on anyone else and therefore no one can enforce any laws against anyone else.
Kerrie said:
i absolutely see your point-hitler did believe he was "right", thus "moral" in his own perspective.
I'm sure there is much debate on that point in psychology circles where they discuss the depth of his mental illness. The veracity of his beliefs is not really all that relevant to this discussion for that reason.
 
  • #18
russ_watters said:
...
Morality is as absolute as the laws of physics,
though just as difficult to figure out.

Wow! Russ were did you get this wild idea! Morality is cultural, each culture has its own morality, there have been many cultures in the history of man most of which you would have been horrified at what was considered moral.
But to put it simply, what is morally right is what works. Murder, for example, cannot be morally right because if it were and everyone were to do it, it would cause society to break down. That idea of morality doesn't work and is therefore flawed.
Frankly, our view of murder is pretty recent. As little as 150 yrs ago in this country a Southern Gentleman could terminate the life of one of his slaves and it would not have been considered murder, no one would have raised an eyebrow or even thought to suggest that murder had been committed. Morality is more defined by the subconscious of the culture then "what works".
If taken to its logical conclusion, moral relativism means anarchy: no one is able to impose any morality on anyone else and therefore no one can enforce any laws against anyone else. I'm sure there is much debate on that point in psychology circles where they discuss the depth of his mental illness. The veracity of his beliefs is not really all that relevant to this discussion for that reason.
There is a significant difference between morality and the legal system, we can impose laws but morality is an entirely separate issue. It is the rare human who will declare THEMSELVES immoral. Irregardless of despicable deeds each human has the ability to rationalize actions so as to believe themself to be moral. That is how ephemeral morality is. As for morality being absolute that is simply ludicrous.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
Murder, for example, cannot be morally right because if it were and everyone were to do it, it would cause society to break down. That idea of morality doesn't work and is therefore flawed.
What is wrong is the Genetic Fallacy…
There may be societal, even evolutionary, reasons explaining why people may view murder as wrong, but being able to explain the how and why for holding a view does not demonstrate the untrue-ness of an opposing view.
Although this may seem a bit odd; I am unconvinced there is necessarily a reason to assume everyone would commit murder even if murder were in fact morally ok, therefore, claiming ‘that idea of morality doesn’t work…’ seems dubious.
 
  • #20
Integral said:
Wow! Russ were did you get this wild idea! Morality is cultural, each culture has its own morality, there have been many cultures in the history of man most of which you would have been horrified at what was considered moral.
And there is a reason why they are no longer around today. Like I said, just because something is "considered" (believed) by some to be moral does not make it moral any more than geistkiel's insistence that light obeys Galilean relativity makes it so.

Morality, just like scientific knowledge is converging into its fundamental laws the more we study it.
Frankly, our view of murder is pretty recent. As little as 150 yrs ago in this country a Southern Gentleman could terminate the life of one of his slaves and it would not have been considered murder, no one would have raised an eyebrow or even thought to suggest that murder had been committed.
More evidence that our understanding of morality is evolving/coalescing into its universal laws.
There is a significant difference between morality and the legal system, we can impose laws but morality is an entirely separate issue.
Murder isn't a moral issue?
As for morality being absolute that is simply ludicrous.
Quite frankly, its only ludicrous because you haven't thought moral relativism through to its logical ends. I'm not saying that to be condescending, its just that very few people ever do. Most people take the morality given to them by their parents and accept it (or don't) with little thought. Religion helps - it says in the Ten Commandments that murder is wrong. So it is... right? Or isn't it? No one ever stops to ask why?

I had a series of seminars on this in college and a good 3/4 of the people started with your opinion. After several weeks of case studies and examples on why moral relativism leads inevitably and invariably to anarchy, virtually everyone eventually concluded that moral relativism is a flawed basis for defining morality. Boiling it down though, think about this:

On what basis can you impose your version of morality on someone else if everyone's own personal view is equally valid?
 
Last edited:
  • #21
BoulderHead said:
I am unconvinced there is necessarily a reason to assume everyone would commit murder even if murder were in fact morally ok, therefore, claiming ‘that idea of morality doesn’t work…’ seems dubious.
I'm not saying everyone would - I'm not even saying that many more would than already do. I'm saying that if you don't have a basis for morality, you don't have a basis for telling people what they can and can't do. If you can't tell people that they can't commit murder, and you don't punish people who do, that will have a pretty big negative impact on society.
 
  • #22
russ_watters said:
I'm not saying everyone would - I'm not even saying that many more would than already do.
Your argument came across differently to me. What I saw was a claim that society would break down.

I'm saying that if you don't have a basis for morality, you don't have a basis for telling people what they can and can't do. If you can't tell people that they can't commit murder, and you don't punish people who do, that will have a pretty big negative impact on society.
You were arguing not in favor of morality but, rather, absolute morality. Here is how I saw your argument;

1) Society cannot exist without absolute morality.
2) Society exists
3) Absolute morality exists

I question the premise and conclusion.
 
  • #23
Allow me to renew this discussion with a few statements with which I think everyone can or should agree:

1. Everyone, with the exception of a very few perhaps, has some concept of morality. Consider: when approached with the question "Is what you are doing morally right?", a vast proportion of people will not balk or question the sanity of the one asking the question, but will more than likely have some quick response to justify themselves and their actions (whether the justification is valid or not will have to be discussed later).

2. Whether or not one defends his/her actions has little to do with the actual morality of the actions. This is why excuses are so prevalent. When faced with the possibility of being caught 'red-handed' doing something that is known to be wrong, even in the sense of a cultural norm, people (that is, we) are very likely to simply lie and willfully promote the morality of something they (we) know, or at least believe, to be immoral.

3. Morality is not synonomous with legality. Many moral things have been - indeed, still may be - illegal. The vice-versa is similarly true.

(This will be the most controversial and emprical statement)
4. Cross-cultural differences in moral codes do not affect the most basic premises of morality, but only the particular applications. For example, killing is never generally accepted but people are still killed. Similarly, cheating is never considered good, although there certainly exist circumstances in many cultures where cheating is promoted. The basic premises have not changed, but value statements have been made to justify their transgression.

Now for some conclusions derived from these premises:

Because of (1), whereby every human has some concept of morality, it follows that morality exists in and of itself. Disagreements about the correctness of one's moral code may certainly exist, yet there are no arguments to dissuade the very existence of morality.

Because of (2), arguments derived from the differences of distinct moral codes may not imply that morality is relative. Also, because of (3), the legality of some action implies nothing about its moral status in that culture. The argument proposed to validate moral relativism in this forum had to do with the murder of slaves some hundred years ago. My counterclaim is that this was legal, yet entirely immoral even in the context of 19th century American culture despite the many attempts to justify it at that time. There exists a vast store of literature from that era which will validate my claim.

Now since morality exists in and of itself, and arguments concerning its application do not imply moral relativism, and since by (4) the concept of morality is essentially constant across cultures, it can be concluded that there is some morality which is common and which exists by itself independant of its application. This is the morality of which I speak when arguing against the moral correctness of a military victor.

This is also the morality which condemns Hitler's murderous intentions. It cries 'despicable' when it sees the horrors of slavery then and now. It has exuded and now exudes its influence in literature from antiquity to the present. Anyone with a tiddle more than a brief exposure to the world, its peoples and its history cannot cling to the hot branding iron of moral relativism. It holds no sway when brought to bear on the realities of life and exists only when separated from its application.
 
  • #24
So far, only one war has been considered.

Only WWII and Hitler have been considered and incidentally, it is one of the rare instances where a "bad guy" can clearly be indentified in the history of war. In this case, few people would argue that "the good guys" won or at least that the worse of the two parties lost. But even in WWII, there was a lot of relativism at work such as the massive aerial bombing campaigns of the allies against German and Japanese civilians.

But beyond World War II, look at all of the innocent peoples that have been wiped out by warfare. The volumes of history that have and could yet be written on the colonial wars instigated by european imperialists against aboriginal peoples round the world do not represent very well the notion that the morally right win wars. If anything, history continues to teach us that nice guys don't win wars, that morality has nothing at all to do with it. Discipline, leadership and most importantly, ample resources (including technological resources) determine the victors of warfare. Wars are fought for and with economic and human power. Morality is a marketing ploy used to sell the product of war.
 
  • #25
BoulderHead said:
Your argument came across differently to me. What I saw was a claim that society would break down.
And it would. It doesn't take that many unpunished murderers, thiefs, rapists, etc before vigliante justice (anarchy) sets in.
You were arguing not in favor of morality but, rather, absolute morality.
That is correct. I do, in fact, believe that no morality has any teeth (ie, can't work) unless it is absolute. A society based on a relative morality would have no choice but to let every individual in the society choose what is morally right and wrong for them and act accordingly.
Here is how I saw your argument;

1) Society cannot exist without absolute morality.
2) Society exists.
[therefore] 3) Absolute morality exists.
#3 needs to be a premise in the same way that every physicist must assume starting out that there are absolute laws governing the universe before starting an experiment. If the experiment works, then that becomes further evidence that that premise is correct. If no experiment ever works (ie, no reproduceable results, ever), then you can throw out the premise.

#1 becomes Universal Morality's first premise. Just as with Relativity's premises though, this one can be tested simply by observing that there has never been a society based on complete moral relativism. Its as axiomatic as the first postulate of Relativity (it even sounds the same): the moral laws of a society are the same for all members of the society. There have of course been varying degrees - a despot is above the laws of the country. A country with a strict caste system (India) has different morality/laws for different people. But in no country can everyone pick and choose what works for them. The jump then is similar to the jump from Galilean to Einsteinean relativity - not a big step.
I question the premise and conclusion.
Fine. Why?
 
Last edited:
  • #26
RRR said:
Only WWII and Hitler have been considered and incidentally, it is one of the rare instances where a "bad guy" can clearly be indentified in the history of war. In this case, few people would argue that "the good guys" won or at least that the worse of the two parties lost. But even in WWII, there was a lot of relativism at work such as the massive aerial bombing campaigns of the allies against German and Japanese civilians.
This wasn't moral relativism: that it was done by the 'good' guys never validated them doing it. A morally superior position in war has never validated every action performed during the war. Rather, war is atrocious in its very nature. Upon reading Churchill's series on the war as well as a vast store of other historical documents it becomes clear just how much argument there was against the Dresden fire bombings etc. from the Allied commanders.

RRR said:
Morality is a marketing ploy used to sell the product of war.
Not quite. Hawks certainly appeal to morality to justify war, but morality is not invented to serve war. For instance, no one would ever say: "Such and such a country is all too nice to us. Let's bomb the hell out of them." and thus invent a completely new morality. The appeals always go like "This group of people are bad because of such and such. Because of this let's bomb the hell out of them." The 'bad because of such and such' is the morality and its not invented, but appealed to. Otherwise, why would such a claim carry any weight, unless the majority of people agreed that 'such and such' was bad?
 
Last edited:
  • #27
One must view the concept of "morality" for what it is...a human concept invented by humanity. It is not a natural law that we somehow discover. As with any human invention, morality serves a purpose. That purpose has primarily been as a tool to aid in the smooth functioning of an ordered society. Beginning with the enlightenment, the concept of individual liberty was added to the function of morality. Morality's purpose then became to function as a tool in balancing social order with individual liberty. It is this function which serves as an absolute---not a universal absolute, but a functional one. Its like any invention...say an automobile. A car is made essentially for transportation--to get from point A to point B. How one makes an automobile and even how one drives it is relative or even a subjective consideration, but the goal is, for practical purposes, an absolute.
 
  • #28
RRR said:
But even in WWII, there was a lot of relativism at work such as the massive aerial bombing campaigns of the allies against German and Japanese civilians.
And the international community has looked back and realized that that isn't how civilized nations should act. I wouldn't call that relativism though. Its coming to an agreement on a universal moral law (indiscriminate bombing of civilians in war is not acceptable).

The international view of morality was changed after WWII precisely because the existing view was seen as flawed: it led to two world wars.
The volumes of history that have and could yet be written on the colonial wars instigated by european imperialists against aboriginal peoples round the world do not represent very well the notion that the morally right win wars.
Back to the original question: I agree with you here that strength is what wins wars, not moral superiority.

dschouten - I mostly agree with you. Minor points:

No, morality is not synonomous with legality (and that's why we're having this part of the argument), but it is suposed to be. Ie, no one will pass a law while admitting they know it to be morally wrong.

On #4 I think we agree (it is, admittedly, complicated) and that's part of my basis for arguing against moral relativism. Some people see the fact that different people have differing views on morality and think that that equals relativism. It doesn't any more than the disagreements in the TD forum mean there are no universal physical laws. It bears repeating: just because someone believes something does not make it right.
 
  • #29
RRR said:
One must view the concept of "morality" for what it is...a human concept invented by humanity. It is not a natural law that we somehow discover. As with any human invention, morality serves a purpose. That purpose has primarily been as a tool to aid in the smooth functioning of an ordered society. Beginning with the enlightenment, the concept of individual liberty was added to the function of morality. Morality's purpose then became to function as a tool in balancing social order with individual liberty.
A reasonable position, but...
It is this function which serves as an absolute---not a universal absolute, but a functional one.
What's the difference between a universal absolute and a functional one? God? 'It just 'Is'?' Since it works just the same either way, I don't see a reason to assume a functional absolute is any different from a universal one. Again, I consider this like the ether vs relativity debate - an unncessary added assumption.
 
  • #30
This wasn't moral relativism: that it was done by the 'good' guys never validated them doing it. Upon reading Churchill's series on the war as well as a vast store of other historical documents it becomes clear just how much argument there was against the Dresden fire bombings etc. from the Allied commanders.

It was debated, but even today, it is largely justified. You won't find a lot of WWII buffs claiming that the A-Bombs should not have been dropped. The idea that the killing of thousands of civilians to save even one American soldier often justifies what might normally be considered reprehensible. While some figures, like Curtis Lemay would privately comment that if they lost the war, they would be tried for war crimes, the will to win and preserve their own troops justified nearly any indiscretion.

Not quite. Hawks certainly appeal to morality to justify war, but morality is not invented to serve war. For instance, no one would ever say: "Such and such a country is all too nice to us. Let's bomb the hell out of them." and thus invent a completely new morality. The appeals always go like "This group of people are bad because of such and such. Because of this let's bomb the hell out of them." The 'bad because of such and such' is the morality and its not invented, but appealed to. Otherwise, why would such a claim carry any weight, unless the majority of people agreed that 'such and such' was bad?

Actually, that's what I meant, but you articulated it better.
 
  • #31
RRR said:
It was debated, but even today, it is largely justified. You won't find a lot of WWII buffs claiming that the A-Bombs should not have been dropped. The idea that the killing of thousands of civilians to save even one American soldier often justifies what might normally be considered reprehensible. While some figures, like Curtis Lemay would privately comment that if they lost the war, they would be tried for war crimes, the will to win and preserve their own troops justified nearly any indiscretion.

Aha. But that is just it - 'largely justified'. People appeal to norms of morality to try and justify an action, but they don't invent new ones, which is the main thrust of my arguments thus far.

It can be debatable whether a particular action is moral simply because the basic laws of morality depend on circumstance, and the circumstances are debatable. But if everyone agreed on the circumstances, everyone would agree on the morality of the action.
 
  • #32
Is it a universal absolute that a car is used to go from point a to point b? I suppose you could use a car as a planter for an herb garden. Morality is a tool like any other. Society, as its wielder has evolving needs. Those needs are what set the "worth" of a moral law and that changes over time and under varying circumstances. Its not a free-for-all relativism that one might imagine. Its grounded in its efficacy. But its not a carved in stone mythic cord binding all living things to do its bidding. If it was universal, then I would expect animals and even inanimate objects to conform to moral law.
 
  • #33
RRR said:
Is it a universal absolute that a car is used to go from point a to point b? I suppose you could use a car as a planter for an herb garden. Morality is a tool like any other. Society, as its wielder has evolving needs. Those needs are what set the "worth" of a moral law and that changes over time and under varying circumstances. Its not a free-for-all relativism that one might imagine. Its grounded in its efficacy. But its not a carved in stone mythic cord binding all living things to do its bidding. If it was universal, then I would expect animals and even inanimate objects to conform to moral law.
Don't be ridiculous. Morality is concerned only with human actions. You don't put a bear on trial for killing a rabbit. Inanimate objects should also seem an obvious exception to morality's universality.

Regarding society's evolving needs, if you were to peer into the moral codes of yesteryear you would find that morality has remained unchanged, as it would be.

I think though, that we are closer together on this issue then we are letting on here. Perhaps my peevishness is standing the way of acceptable compromise. Alas, but for my egoism!
 
  • #34
You guys are too fast for me. I'm goofing off of work and before I can post a reply to the last response, another one is already out there.

It can be debatable whether a particular action is moral simply because the basic laws of morality depend on circumstance, and the circumstances are debatable. But if everyone agreed on the circumstances, everyone would agree on the morality of the action.

I can concede this. But even so, I think a lot of it remains subjective. Morality is determined by a society, or even a community, if you will. Often, even in our more international world, rules for one's community are often not applied to "outsiders". I think it remains difficult for many people, especially in war, to apply the same logic that may justify one's own actions to justifying the action of an enemy. Even if people do agree on the circumstances, its not given that they will agree with the actions taken simply because they may belong to different communities.
 
  • #35
Don't be ridiculous. Morality is concerned only with human actions. You don't put a bear on trial for killing a rabbit. Inanimate objects should also seem an obvious exception to morality's universality.

Actually, that reply was to this from russ_watters. I must be more careful.

What's the difference between a universal absolute and a functional one? God? 'It just 'Is'?' Since it works just the same either way, I don't see a reason to assume a functional absolute is any different from a universal one. Again, I consider this like the ether vs relativity debate - an unncessary added assumption.

But yes, morality isn't concerned with animal behavior or inanimate objects. It is only concerned with human action. Which is why I can't see that it is "universal". Thats why I believe that it is a human invention. I was just being flippant.
 
  • #36
RRR said:
But yes, morality isn't concerned with animal behavior or inanimate objects. It is only concerned with human action. Which is why I can't see that it is "universal". Thats why I believe that it is a human invention. I was just being flippant.
No, this can't be the case. The universal law of the weak interaction doesn't apply to all particles, only those that interact weakly, yet the law is still universal.

When I state 'universal law' what I mean to say is that, given a group of things this law applies to, any member of that group, at any point in time, in any place in the universe, is subject to that law. So if there is a law that applies to humans, it is a universal law if it applies to all humans. Morality is one such law.
 
  • #37
That is correct. I do, in fact, believe that no morality has any teeth (ie, can't work) unless it is absolute. A society based on a relative morality would have no choice but to let every individual in the society choose what is morally right and wrong for them and act accordingly.
You seem to be considering a society based solely on respect for individual relativism, claiming that such a society would ultimately break down. While I’m inclined to agree with you on that point what I am seeing overlooked here is any consideration for cultural relativism.
Also, I need clarification on what exactly you mean by ‘absolute’. When you make the statement “Morality is as absolute as the laws of physics, though just as difficult to figure out.”, what exactly are you saying?
Is it a claim, for example, that morality has existed in nature, independent of man, in the form of something akin to a law, or is it merely to claim that all men have a moral code of some type? Also, what do you think makes it so difficult to figure out?

When you say “…what is morally right is what works.” I actually tend to agree, though not perhaps for the same reasons you do. I look at it more from the context of individuals wishing to fulfill their needs/wants, recognizing that society is a means to accomplish this, and then formulating ways to behave with respect to others such that their objectives aren’t defeated. I view this process having more to do with engineering than immutable law, although I can see the flip side where societal experimentation may reveal some behavior to work better than others towards fulfilling a specific objective and a sort of codification of ‘law’ (dare I say the word?) takes place, haha. Still, I think it is because I view such things as being done purposefully, with definite ends in mind (ends that may vary from one group to the next), that I may hold a different understanding than you, or not, as much depends on how you define ‘absolute’.

So, when you ask why I question the premise “Society cannot exist without absolute morality.” I would answer that it is in part because the goals of a society may vary and with it, morality.
 
  • #38
im toying with the idea of the moraly right having to do with moraly stable

what i mean by moraly stable is a system of morals that supports a strong social/economic/military system (things that could be used to maintain the moral code). like in the case of ww2, the nazis would have been over thrown before long by another group who would divote less resources to vengfull or genocidal acts because it would detract from other goals that relate more closly to victory.
this is to say that i consider the differences in the moral code of the nazis to be a weakness

an example of an imoral thing that would damage an economic system would be insider trading. if something is moraly justifyable but damages the system, it weakens it and thus makes it less stable to being overtaken by something else

what I am trying to understand is if the winners of wars and conflict have strong and stable moral systems and win because of the better moral code. sort of like 'survival of the fittest' referring to a moral system
 
  • #39
dschouten said:
Don't be ridiculous. Morality is concerned only with human actions. You don't put a bear on trial for killing a rabbit. Inanimate objects should also seem an obvious exception to morality's universality.
Dissident_Dan, any comment on this...?
It was debated, but even today, it is largely justified. You won't find a lot of WWII buffs claiming that the A-Bombs should not have been dropped. The idea that the killing of thousands of civilians to save even one American soldier often justifies what might normally be considered reprehensible.
I've never seen anyone make that argument. The argument was always 'is killing 100,000 civilians worth it to save half a million soldiers on our side alone?'
 
Last edited:
  • #40
devil-fire said:
im toying with the idea of the moraly right having to do with moraly stable

what i mean by moraly stable is a system of morals that supports a strong social/economic/military system (things that could be used to maintain the moral code). like in the case of ww2, the nazis would have been over thrown before long by another group who would divote less resources to vengfull or genocidal acts because it would detract from other goals that relate more closly to victory.
this is to say that i consider the differences in the moral code of the nazis to be a weakness

an example of an imoral thing that would damage an economic system would be insider trading. if something is moraly justifyable but damages the system, it weakens it and thus makes it less stable to being overtaken by something else
This depends all to heavily on the 'system' employed, so that what you are really saying is that morality is subservient to economic/sociological systems rather than the vice-versa (which is what I would propose). Because of this, the morality of which you speak really isn't 'morality' per se, but rather a codefied means of self-preservation within the context of some pre-existing system. Too wit: insider trading isn't bad, its just inefficient. If this is the case we have reached the pinacle of moral relativism, and I hope that previous posts in this forum can steer the attentive reader clear of such dangerous reasoning.
devil-fire said:
what I am trying to understand is if the winners of wars and conflict have strong and stable moral systems and win because of the better moral code. sort of like 'survival of the fittest' referring to a moral system
I actually discussed this earlier and was quite close to agreeing with you (a priori). It was stated that perhaps the winners of wars are equipped with a stronger will stemming from a morally defensible position. Von Clausewitz has argued (albeit some hundred years ago) that the clash of combatants continues to escalate in force proportional to the combatants' will (with their will being derived from political/military/ethical objectives). A morally defensible position would certainly strengthen a combatant's resolve, I think.
 
  • #41
dschouten said:
This depends all to heavily on the 'system' employed, so that what you are really saying is that morality is subservient to economic/sociological systems rather than the vice-versa (which is what I would propose). Because of this, the morality of which you speak really isn't 'morality' per se, but rather a codefied means of self-preservation within the context of some pre-existing system. Too wit: insider trading isn't bad, its just inefficient. If this is the case we have reached the pinacle of moral relativism, and I hope that previous posts in this forum can steer the attentive reader clear of such dangerous reasoning.

Hi dschouten,

I think there is no such thing like an abstract and unambigious morality that is
a transcendent and absolute standard to human behaviour.
Morality is an mass-doctrinal pamphlet, that manifests certain convictions, a group of people have agreed on and by that it qualifies to be an ideology.
Its the basic manifest of human will, it reflects the need to integrate humans under an instituiton of behavioural standards .
In totalitarian systems morality is the totalitism itself, and as in capitalsts systems morality seems to be separated from other spheres of human life, where other paradigms dominate the actions.
Even the answer to the question what makes morality is totally dependent from the pre-existing culture of people. In Islam there is no morality, but Islam. Semantically it amounts to the same, for Islam is the utmost code of conduct for muslims, and by that qualifies for being called a morality, of course in the light of a muslim perspective.
By that sharia ruled countries are more morally, as the cultural and moral hypocrites of western nations, for they can't catch up with there preached morality.
So is there a universal morality?
 
Last edited:
  • #42
Missed this before:
BoulderHead said:
You seem to be considering a society based solely on respect for individual relativism, claiming that such a society would ultimately break down. While I’m inclined to agree with you on that point what I am seeing overlooked here is any consideration for cultural relativism.
Can such a thing as cultural relativism exist? That would require the contradictory position of saying: 'morality is a matter of opinion and no one's is any better than anyone else's, but you (the citizen) still need to do what I (the leader) say.' Not good for stability. Maybe a lot of Americans share that belief - maybe that's the reason so many distrust the government.
Also, I need clarification on what exactly you mean by ‘absolute’. When you make the statement “Morality is as absolute as the laws of physics, though just as difficult to figure out.”, what exactly are you saying?
Is it a claim, for example, that morality has existed in nature, independent of man, in the form of something akin to a law, or is it merely to claim that all men have a moral code of some type? Also, what do you think makes it so difficult to figure out?
Think of it this way - the laws of the universe exist independent of humans, but its only in the past 500 years or so that we've started to figure them out. For the first 20,000 years or so of human existence, we didn't even have a method for looking for them. Since most people consider morality to be philosophical/religious in nature, we're still not there yet in our pursuit of morality.

I see morality the same way. Now, it is true that humans are the only ones on Earth that the total picture of morality is relevant to - but then, we're also the only ones capable of understanding the laws of physics too. If an alien race came to earth, I believe they would have a very similar morality to our own because that morality, quite simply,works. It is also true though, that other animals display some of the aspects of morality - in a way limited by their ability to grasp and follow it. Animals like wolves and monkeys, for example, arrange themselves into social structures because if they didn't, they'd die out. Spiders eat most of their young (an their mates) because doing so doesn't harm their existence (since they produce thousands of young at a time). The higher the level of the organism, the more constrained it is by the rules of morality.
 
  • #43
devil-fire said:
im toying with the idea of the moraly right having to do with moraly stable

what i mean by moraly stable is a system of morals that supports a strong social/economic/military system (things that could be used to maintain the moral code). like in the case of ww2, the nazis would have been over thrown before long by another group who would divote less resources to vengfull or genocidal acts because it would detract from other goals that relate more closly to victory.
this is to say that i consider the differences in the moral code of the nazis to be a weakness

an example of an imoral thing that would damage an economic system would be insider trading. if something is moraly justifyable but damages the system, it weakens it and thus makes it less stable to being overtaken by something else

what I am trying to understand is if the winners of wars and conflict have strong and stable moral systems and win because of the better moral code. sort of like 'survival of the fittest' referring to a moral system
You and I are more or less on the same page, but I think you're underrating the complexity of the problem. The Soviet Union lasted 50 years or so by sucking dry its people and its land. China has lasted almost as long, but is moderating (because it knows it has to to survive). So this is part of the problem figuring out morality - the experimentation process takes generations. Communism as the Soviets envisioned it failed - maybe they can tweak the theory and try again.

Hitler succeeded for a surprising amount of time, but eventually his moral code led him to the conclusion he needed to take over a large part of the world and kill a whole lot of people. Unsurprisingly, the rest of the world resisted his vision and he failed.
 
  • #44
russ_watters said:
I see morality the same way. Now, it is true that humans are the only ones on Earth that the total picture of morality is relevant to - but then, we're also the only ones capable of understanding the laws of physics too. If an alien race came to earth, I believe they would have a very similar morality to our own because that morality, quite simply,works. It is also true though, that other animals display some of the aspects of morality - in a way limited by their ability to grasp and follow it. Animals like wolves and monkeys, for example, arrange themselves into social structures because if they didn't, they'd die out. Spiders eat most of their young (an their mates) because doing so doesn't harm their existence (since they produce thousands of young at a time). The higher the level of the organism, the more constrained it is by the rules of morality.

This sounds vaguely reminiscient of a book written by Hunter at the turn of the twentieth century in which he idealized human morality as only a complex version of animal behaviour. His view of morality (like the view espoused by russ_watters above) is quite wrong I'm afraid.

Continuing in the line of explanatory examples, let's consider the "morally reprehensible" actions of your common spider. It would seem apparent to me that the act of a spider eating its young (or mates) can have no moral qualifiers: spiders quite simply eat their young by instinct. There are no 'good' spiders which refrain from doing this. All spiders do this. Condeming a spider, or applying any moral value to its actions, is like stating that my computer was 'wrong' in crashing on me today. Its just hard-wired that way. No value statement can be made about it.
 
  • #45
dschouten said:
This sounds vaguely reminiscient of a book written by Hunter at the turn of the twentieth century in which he idealized human morality as only a complex version of animal behaviour. His view of morality (like the view espoused by russ_watters above) is quite wrong I'm afraid.

Continuing in the line of explanatory examples, let's consider the "morally reprehensible" actions of your common spider. It would seem apparent to me that the act of a spider eating its young (or mates) can have no moral qualifiers: spiders quite simply eat their young by instinct. There are no 'good' spiders which refrain from doing this. All spiders do this. Condeming a spider, or applying any moral value to its actions, is like stating that my computer was 'wrong' in crashing on me today. Its just hard-wired that way. No value statement can be made about it.
Your explanation doesn't address the differences between humans and spiders. In fact, the 'hard wiring' of morality (via evolution) into humans and spiders is further evidence to me of universal morality.

Spiders are clearly 'lower' forms of life than humans. As such, their 'hard wired' morality is less evolved and less complete. Your argument against an absolute morality is the same as my argument for it.
 
Last edited:
  • #46
russ_watters said:
I'm sure there is much debate on that point in psychology circles where they discuss the depth of his mental illness. The veracity of his beliefs is not really all that relevant to this discussion for that reason.

not relevant to this discussion?? let's not allow our opinions get in the way of judgement russ...why do you think i used quotations around the words "right" and "moral"? i think you misunderstood my tone. please go back and read my post a little more carefully.
 
Last edited:
  • #47
Kerrie said:
not relevant to this discussion?? let's not allow our opinions get in the way of judgement russ...why do you think i used quotations around the words "right" and "moral"? i think you misunderstood my tone. please go back and read my post a little more carefully.
I think I misunderstood your tone too - and rereading your post, I have no idea why you put quotes around "right" and "moral." I'm honestly not following you - could you explain?
 
  • #48
russ_watters said:
I see morality the same way.

I don't see morality your way at all. Are you saying that there is an absolute morality, and that other ways are not moral? Are you denying, as I gather from this post, that there are valid, appropriate subjective cultural aspects to morality?


Now, it is true that humans are the only ones on Earth that the total picture of morality is relevant to

Please explain how it is true. How is the "total" picture of morality relevant to humans, and how many millennia has this been true, in your opinion?
 
  • #49
russ_watters said:
I'm sure there is much debate on that point in psychology circles where they discuss the depth of his mental illness.

i was making the point using quotations that hitler thinks he is morally right, but the rest of the sane population does not. i am sure you have seen people using quotes around certain words to emphasize a hint of sarcasm?

russ_waters said:
The veracity of his beliefs is not really all that relevant to this discussion for that reason.
yes it is. the name of the topic literally asks the question "Are the moraly right the victors of war?" i blatantly answered the question with the example of adolf hitler's rule. because i believe morality is not a universal concept, but an individual one, my answer to the question is NO because hitler believed he was morally right, but did not win the war. perhaps we have different definitions of morality?

thus, i think you misunderstood me :smile:
 
  • #50
Kerrie said:
i was making the point using quotations that hitler thinks he is morally right, but the rest of the sane population does not. i am sure you have seen people using quotes around certain words to emphasize a hint of sarcasm?


yes it is. the name of the topic literally asks the question "Are the moraly right the victors of war?" i blatantly answered the question with the example of adolf hitler's rule. because i believe morality is not a universal concept, but an individual one, my answer to the question is NO because hitler believed he was morally right, but did not win the war. perhaps we have different definitions of morality?

thus, i think you misunderstood me :smile:

I agree with you Kerrie. It is very relevant the Hitler and other vile tyrants did believe themselves to be justified. Stalin, too, for example. They had wrapped themselves each in his own theory to the point where the common morality no longer bound them.

This is not the way sociopaths' minds work, like that Columbine kid, but it seems to be what is required for a head of state to go off the rails.
 
Back
Top