Views on the nature of Morality

Started by GurrenLagann, March 08, 2013, 01:36:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Colanth

Quote from: "Jmpty"I'm reminded of the people who, when attempting to denigrate Islam, they bring up Aisha, and refer to Muhammed as a pedophile, when it was perfectly "moral" and culturally acceptable at the time. The child bride thing is still accepted in many cultures today, but the west finds it morally unacceptable. Morals are cultural constructs. Period.
And, as such, are subjective by definition.
Afflicting the comfortable for 70 years.
Science builds skyscrapers, faith flies planes into them.

Mathias

Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Elaborate? You can assert that it's subjective (or rather that there are no objective moral values), but I really am waiting to read how that explain how.

Although not a simple discussion and "running away" from a long-winded philosophical debate, I think that there's nothing absolute in human actions and thoughts, cause it is impossible to differentiate some moral value, (self) rationally stated goal, of a subjective decision, selfish, empathic, or even insane.
Being simpler, where is the proof that there is objectivity in subjectiv's values???

It would be almost the same as proving god's existence. Ie, another distorted religious metaphysics, whose best explanation is the person realize that faith removes neurons.
"There is no logic in the existence of any god".
Myself.

Jmpty

Cannibalism was, and still is morally acceptable in some cultures, as is human sacrifice, burning witches, stoning, female genital mutilation, etc. These things that western morality finds abhorrent, are not viewed as such by those who do not share the same social, moral construct that we share in the west. It doesn't make their culture "immoral' objectively, only immoral by our standard, which proves once again the subjective nature of morality.
???  ??

Sal1981

There are certain features in us, as a social species, that pretty much define what we consider moral and which we have words for, such as compassion and empathy. However, I find it hard to justify ethics if it doesn't somehow include our genetic makeup as a social species.

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "Sal1981"There are certain features in us, as a social species, that pretty much define what we consider moral and which we have words for, such as compassion and empathy. However, I find it hard to justify ethics if it doesn't somehow include our genetic makeup as a social species.


I could imagine a society in which feelings such as compassion and empathy are regarded as moral failings.
<insert witty aphorism here>

Jmpty

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "Sal1981"There are certain features in us, as a social species, that pretty much define what we consider moral and which we have words for, such as compassion and empathy. However, I find it hard to justify ethics if it doesn't somehow include our genetic makeup as a social species.


I could imagine a society in which feelings such as compassion and empathy are regarded as moral failings.

See: Ancient Sparta, for one.
???  ??

aitm

I am reminded of DeGaulle who, if I recall correctly, once asked, " how can one govern a country that has over 350 cheeses?"
Every argument posted here must rely on a relative unknown that we somehow refuse to consider, and that is that the human character is not 1 to 5 and then/or 95 to 100. The human character unfortunately runs from 1 to 100.

We first must realize that even in a "given" culture there are those who reject that  "moral code, those morays".  The human animal is not so easy to describe and pin down as many psychos would like to suggest. No doubt the majority of the majority can be pigeonholed, but that leads us to understand that the variety among the "normal" is sufficient to realize that no code of conduct can ever be applied correctly if we also allow free will of an individual. Not to suggest that is it right or wrong to rape kids, but is it wrong to self mutilate? And what is mutilation? Tatoos? Even here we have subjective views.

60 years ago Katchatorian and Lunde decribed what even today is bizarre cultural behaviors. Cultures where kidnapping and raping a woman was not just normal but an expected way of matrimony. Children picked at random to be the male lover of the chief, no matter his opinion. Children expected, no demanded to actually defeat their father in battle in order to become a man. Cultures where parents masturbated their children. In all these cultures there is no claim of rampant disfunction. 200 years ago girls were commonly raped and yet survived, they were far hardier than we are today. 200 years ago boys were men at 14 and expected to fight and die and had no qualms about it.

Society and culture change, and we have these discussion trying to pigeonhole that which at this time cannot be pigeonholed, and may never be. We try to evolve into a better world and a more compassioned people but there are many among us who can never view even such simple things as mild masochistic behavior as abnormal. I applaud the attempt, but do not get discouraged and mad when you meet resistance, just when you think the battle is won, the door opens and someone new walks in.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Chaoslord2004

I will preface this by saying there has been a lot of bad--shocking bad--forms of reasoning and lines of argumentation.  Like, from atheists, this is particularly shocking.

Quote from: "GurrenLagann"What are your views on the nature of morality? By which I mean, do you think morality is objective, subjective or relative?

I'm assuming that none of you believe there can be an absolute morality.

So I presume you're asking a metaethical question, yes?  You're not asking which normative theory is best (utilitarianism, deontology or virtue ethics), yes?

I'm not sure what you mean by "absolute morality."  Do you mean something like moral realism?  Where moral realism is defined as the family of views that moral propositions are true independent of any particular judgements about them and that moral states of affairs have their properties irrespective of any particular judgement about them.

Why would you think atheists don't like this view?  It's not a theistic view--like divine command theory.  It's a fairly popular view.  Most philosophers--who are atheists btw--claim to be moral realists.  Why think this view is untenable among atheists?

Honestly, i'm sympathetic to moral realism.  Though there are serious problems for the view.  Check out Evolutionary Debunking Arguments for Moral Realism.
"Engaging in philosophy is salutary, even when no positive results emerge...The color is brighter, that is, reality appears more clearly as such." ~Kurt Godel.

"Do not weep; do not wax indignant. Understand." ~Benedict De Spinoza

Jason Harvestdancer

Believing that there can be an absolute morality is not the same as believing there is one.
White privilege is being a lifelong racist, then being sent to the White House twice because your running mate is a minority.<br /><br />No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA!

Sal1981

Quote from: "Jmpty"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "Sal1981"There are certain features in us, as a social species, that pretty much define what we consider moral and which we have words for, such as compassion and empathy. However, I find it hard to justify ethics if it doesn't somehow include our genetic makeup as a social species.


I could imagine a society in which feelings such as compassion and empathy are regarded as moral failings.

See: Ancient Sparta, for one.
Not a very good society since it went extinct because of their eugenics and militaristic state. A good read of the history of ancient Sparta is in Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sparta

Thought about it for a while.

What I'm getting at is that evolution has granted us some intuitive sense, often referred to as a moral compass, as to what feels right and wrong, simply because good moral behavior had a greater chance of surviving and passing on those genes via natural selection. Although I have a hard time explaining why animals that aren't social have been so successful, I reckon social animals have been more successful than unsocial (not to be confused with antisocial) animals. That the mechanism of natural selection somehow favours social behavior more because it works better than unsocial behavior. But I'm getting over my head here, I know too little about sociability from a genetic perspective.

GurrenLagann

Forgot about this thread. I'll be periodically answering some responses.


Quote from: "Chaoslord2004"I will preface this by saying there has been a lot of bad--shocking bad--forms of reasoning and lines of argumentation.  Like, from atheists, this is particularly shocking.

If it was from me (strong possibility), could you point out where and how I goof'd?

Quote from: "GurrenLagann"What are your views on the nature of morality? By which I mean, do you think morality is objective, subjective or relative?

I'm assuming that none of you believe there can be an absolute morality.

QuoteSo I presume you're asking a metaethical question, yes?  You're not asking which normative theory is best (utilitarianism, deontology or virtue ethics), yes?

Indeed.

QuoteI'm not sure what you mean by "absolute morality."  Do you mean something like moral realism?  Where moral realism is defined as the family of views that moral propositions are true independent of any particular judgements about them and that moral states of affairs have their properties irrespective of any particular judgement about them.

Moral absolutism meaning that something is intrinsically, necessarily moral or immoral, irrespective of any and all  circumstances and intents. (i.e "killing is always immoral") It is often supported by theists, though it tends to be easily broken down and forced to moral objectivism/universalism (namely, Divine-Command theory).


QuoteWhy would you think atheists don't like this view?  It's not a theistic view--like divine command theory.  It's a fairly popular view.  Most philosophers--who are atheists btw--claim to be moral realists.  Why think this view is untenable among atheists?

I wasn't refering to moral realism. :) It's a bit... different. :P

QuoteHonestly, i'm sympathetic to moral realism.  Though there are serious problems for the view.  Check out Evolutionary Debunking Arguments for Moral Realism.

Will do. :)
Which means that to me the offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can\'t give way, is the offer of something not worth having.
[...]
Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty & wisdom, will come to you that way.
-Christopher Hitchens

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "Sal1981"Not a very good society since it went extinct because of their eugenics and militaristic state. A good read of the history of ancient Sparta is in Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sparta

Thought about it for a while.

What I'm getting at is that evolution has granted us some intuitive sense, often referred to as a moral compass, as to what feels right and wrong, simply because good moral behavior had a greater chance of surviving and passing on those genes via natural selection. Although I have a hard time explaining why animals that aren't social have been so successful, I reckon social animals have been more successful than unsocial (not to be confused with antisocial) animals. That the mechanism of natural selection somehow favours social behavior more because it works better than unsocial behavior. But I'm getting over my head here, I know too little about sociability from a genetic perspective.

Establishing a pragmatic yardstick for moral imperatives  doesn't really mean much.  Strip away the overlaid morality and go with the practical reasoning altogether, if that's the case.

The argument that the moral compass is biological is given the lie by the fact that different societies practice different moral codes. Also, not all moral behaviors are "visible" to natural selection.  Telling the truth can be deadly, yet we hold it to be moral.
<insert witty aphorism here>

GurrenLagann

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The argument that the moral compass is biological is given the lie by the fact that different societies practice different moral codes. Also, not all moral behaviors are "visible" to natural selection.  Telling the truth can be deadly, yet we hold it to be moral.

How does there being some variation among societies in regards to moral codes invalidate the possibility of it being biologically endowed? Variation of behaviors and beliefs is something that is rampant throughout our species.


How would truth-telling not be 'visible' the natural selection? There are situations in which doing so could be deadly, but come on man, how often have you (or anyone you know) been in a situation in which it was the case in which telling the truth would have life threatening consequences? Conversely, trouble tends to follow rather axiomatically from lieing once it's discovered, and it would seem to be far more likely in very ancient socieities and onward that it (lieing) would be far more likely to have adverse consequences.
Which means that to me the offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can\'t give way, is the offer of something not worth having.
[...]
Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty & wisdom, will come to you that way.
-Christopher Hitchens

Sal1981

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"[spoil:v8hv9yzc]
Quote from: "Sal1981"Not a very good society since it went extinct because of their eugenics and militaristic state. A good read of the history of ancient Sparta is in Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sparta

Thought about it for a while.

What I'm getting at is that evolution has granted us some intuitive sense, often referred to as a moral compass, as to what feels right and wrong, simply because good moral behavior had a greater chance of surviving and passing on those genes via natural selection. Although I have a hard time explaining why animals that aren't social have been so successful, I reckon social animals have been more successful than unsocial (not to be confused with antisocial) animals. That the mechanism of natural selection somehow favours social behavior more because it works better than unsocial behavior. But I'm getting over my head here, I know too little about sociability from a genetic perspective.
[/spoil:v8hv9yzc]

Establishing a pragmatic yardstick for moral imperatives  doesn't really mean much.  Strip away the overlaid morality and go with the practical reasoning altogether, if that's the case.
I view it as top-down. I.e. morality is a subset of reason, such that you can use reason to all moral behavior, but not the other way around. But this is shifting focus from moral behavior in species and how that is present.


Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The argument that the moral compass is biological is given the lie by the fact that different societies practice different moral codes. Also, not all moral behaviors are "visible" to natural selection.  Telling the truth can be deadly, yet we hold it to be moral.
I didn't mean that evolved moral behavior is in anyway exhaustive or covers all moral behavior, nor did I state that anywhere.