Do we really need morals?

[Dude_Doc]

Many of the ills of modern society are caused by the fact that capitalism creates a psychological imbalance by blowing the individualist drive completely out of proportion, and trying to pretend that the social one doesn't exist. Obsessive individualism makes people feel empty, devoid of purpose, insignificant.

And I presume it was these "evil capitalists" who made us immoral beasts 1000 years ago?

[nemafakei]

Historically, the greed/expectancy inflation has been a cause of may things - from feudalism to capitalism, to Russian communism as an antagonist, and so on.

[Phage]

Morality is not objective. But, it can become more objective when it becomes a law, a written moral so-to-speak. In societies in early South America, cannibalism, sacrifices, etc, were morally ok. They weren't "founded" under the same morals we have today. Morality is a creation of man, and is able to be changed by man. Morality FUBU, for us by us.

But that is saying morality equals law and begging the question. This also misses the point as I and others don't mean "law" by morality but a sort of emotion or value, which if violated causes one to feel guilty, to feel wrong. Hence it is there psychologically whether we want it or not. Many people for example believe that slavery and nazi opression were immoral, even though they were legal. So obviously people don't automatically mean legality when they speak of morality.

Sure the viewpoint is agent dependent, meaning based on teh characteristics of agents. And in a sense this is subjective(and does not become any more objective with laws then if taste were made into a law) but in a sense it is also objective.

Take pleasure and pain for example, very subjective things in a sense. But at the same time we consider the statement "Getting stabbed hurts" and objective fact. This didn't need a law to make it so either. Hence morality is not based objectively on law, only enforced. It is objectively based on our character and intrinsic traits, our mental and physical dispositions and exgenetic mechanisms.

Morality is also not the creation of man but evolution. In groups of animals there are always norms followed, either instinctively or semi-instinctively. People just don't like to call them morals. Just like they didn't like calling an animal's reactions "emotions".

However they are obviously there. I think however just like humans have a more complex and instrinsic means of communication then other animals: language. Human's also have a finer tuned sense of morality, due to their far more powerful intellect.

What I mean is with increased intelligence comes an increasinly powerful way to screw people over and detect/flush out immoral types. This means to increase a person's chance of surviving in a social enviroment, the person will have to have a stronger sense of right and wrong so that the group is more willing to accept him or her (so that he will not be as tempted and untrusted/disliked/eliminated). And the groups' members will need a stronger sense if the group is to remain competitive with other moral and hence stable groups.

[Phage]

I was thinking to clarify my position I will use an allegory/analogy. One partially borrowed from a sci-fi story I read online. This contrasts my own position, which I call situational objectivism(recognizing objectovity which varies with the situation), from the other positions of absolutism and relativism.

Lets say a group of astronaughts discovers a race of intelligent man-sozed insect like aliens. These aliens are kind, reasonable, sophisticated animals. They are over all very strange but very kind and decent to the astronaughts as well to all future humans they encounter. However after a few decades it is learned that when they reach around age 8, a group(of about 10 or so) of these creatures have to gather around and murder as well as devour a full grown female of their kind. This is necessary for them to reach maturity, and if they don't do this they suffer intense mental anguish and die within a few years. Lets imagine they need to hormones and the murderous act itself satisfies/activates certain psychological mechanisms.

Now how do we treat these creatures who's biology at one point of their life demands murder?

The absolutist would have to condemn them outright and hold trials. Murder/the killing of an innocent person is wrong no matter what, and the wrong doers should be pdeontological/spiritual one, usually a matter of choice. These aliens are hence all evil murderers, there can be no exceptions under absolutism which is why it is called absolutism.

The other viewpoint, relativism, accepts that these creatures practices are good for them. But the relativist thinking that moral practices are made up social constructs, comes to the bizarre conclusion that such murderous cannibalism would be equally good for us. Obviously, variation is involved, but the overall warrant for this variation is based on objective characteristics of both groups, humans and aliens, not just random choices or made up decisions. Just because they need to do this act once in their life, and feel good about it, doesn't mean human societies can effectively do so. Humans would likely feel guilty, become mean spirited and suffer no good effects if such an act was implemented.

My viewpoint recognizes that we are dealing with two different species that need to be treated different, not because their morals and ethical norms are made up, but because of their differing intrinsic characteristics. There is an objectivity here, but the objectivity reocognizes objetive differences. Just like we will need to eat different foods and mate in different ways, we will need different norms. And just like some foods taste better then others, or are healthier and people all have a sex drive, we will all have a morality. One in which there are better and worse ways of satisfying it, and one in which though there be variation, there will also be certain general practices based in mankinds common biology and enviroments.

[Acriku]

But that is saying morality equals law and begging the question.

What I was saying is that law is based on morality, it is not morality itself. When a leader chooses to enforce it, they try to make it a law. Like the people who wanted the Anti-Sodomy law in Texas, they wanted to enforce what they think is right and wrong.

Morality is also not the creation of man but evolution. In groups of animals there are always norms followed, either instinctively or semi-instinctively. People just don't like to call them morals. Just like they didn't like calling an animal's reactions "emotions".

What I should have said was that morality itself is not created by man, but we create morals in the sense that we build off of the more general morals, or instincts. Also, they have grown increasingly complex, referring to the heirarchy of our society and race. Self, Family, community, county, state, nation, race. And I think instinct is a little different than morals because in my opinion morality requires a conscious acknowledgement of whether it would be right or wrong, whereas I do not see an animal without a rational mind to be able to do that. Thus, it has instinct where there isn't any acknowledgement of it, it is already imprinted. I do think animals have emotion, it's quite apparent to me when I look at their behavior.

[TMA_1]

Slavery was not the same as it was when europeans got involved in the dirty business. In ancient customs it was fully accepted. It was not racially instigated and had nothing to do with a person being inferior, it was just a place of somebody, and in many countries there was a law that would allow slaves to go after a time. Do I think its right? no, but it is the way it works in this life. If morality is subjective then there would be no morality to begin with. Humans dont hold to things that they are not endowed with. The fact that there is a universal ideal of morality and a universal code that is followed by all shows that morality is objective. You are just addressing cultural formalities. You never mention though that every single culture has the exact same core values as any other. Confusious taught that family was the center of life, and that if good families exist, a good nation will be built upon that. That is exactly how the romans over in western europe viewed it. Look at the core of it. Look at tribalism. That shows the objectivity of morals. People naturally tend to stick together and help one another, keep families strong and never hurt another brother or sister. Never steal or lie, dont cheat on your mate, blah blah. These are everywhere. it is objective because we have the same kind of morality everywhere.

You have pointed out slavery, cannablism, human sacrifice, and there are many other things that we westerners deem immoral. These arent core values though, and are attributed to the lust patterns of human beings. Remember, as long as there is crime and evil, there will always be people attacking that crime and evil. It is not even given a thought, it is what we do naturally.

[Acriku]

Oi...

Slavery was not the same as it was when europeans got involved in the dirty business. In ancient customs it was fully accepted. It was not racially instigated and had nothing to do with a person being inferior, it was just a place of somebody, and in many countries there was a law that would allow slaves to go after a time. Do I think its right? no, but it is the way it works in this life.

I don't understand the point of this passage.

If morality is subjective then there would be no morality to begin with. Humans dont hold to things that they are not endowed with. The fact that there is a universal ideal of morality and a universal code that is followed by all shows that morality is objective. You are just addressing cultural formalities. You never mention though that every single culture has the exact same core values as any other. Confusious taught that family was the center of life, and that if good families exist, a good nation will be built upon that. That is exactly how the romans over in western europe viewed it. Look at the core of it. Look at tribalism. That shows the objectivity of morals. People naturally tend to stick together and help one another, keep families strong and never hurt another brother or sister. Never steal or lie, dont cheat on your mate, blah blah. These are everywhere. it is objective because we have the same kind of morality everywhere.

Morality is subjective to each and every one of us, but morality itself is objective in that we all have a morality. The morals making up the system of morality are what are subjective. Every single culture does not have the same exact core values as every other culture. Some core values are similar in that it is accepted for the better of that culture, but in no means is it objective. Look at America. Our core values are rooted from leaving religious persecution in England and making a country that has freedom for everybody. No more persecution of religion, race, creed, or belief. We had slavery carry over into the beginning years of this country, but it is the core value of America that let it be found unconstitutional. Freedom for everybody. I say that is quite different than most other cultures during the beginning of America.

Now, let's say all cultures do in fact have the same exact core values. Does mean morality is therefore objective? If so, what morality? Christian morality? You haven't been specific in exactly what morality you were referring to. Also, you say we have the same morals everywhere - but we don't. What morals are these that are everywhere?

You have pointed out slavery, cannablism, human sacrifice, and there are many other things that we westerners deem immoral. These arent core values though, and are attributed to the lust patterns of human beings. Remember, as long as there is crime and evil, there will always be people attacking that crime and evil. It is not even given a thought, it is what we do naturally.

They are moralities nevertheless. And what of core values? You weren't talking about core values, you were talking about the objectivity of morality (although you never specified what morality).

[nemafakei]

Ah, but it depends on what that absolute moral code is. I'm trying to explain mine more clearly on paper... It would work though.

[Phage]

Acrikue perhaps you are not drawing enough distinction between moral values, practices and moral beliefs/standards. They are not the same, for example you asked which morality was to be the universal one, "Christian morality" but that ignores the fact that Christianity is not itself the root of moral values. Only a belief about how these values originate and function. Hence Christianity has a theory of values, it's not the cause of them.

Hence I believe of course only one moral theory can be true, as of course Christian, secular, and Buddhist theories cannot all be correct/true.

But values may vary, though I don't think wildly.As we all have a basic human biology and a relatively common enviroment(where we all must eat, breath air, get along with family/parents, etc.)

Moral/ethical practices however may vary greatly as they are based on moral theories. A moral practice concerns itself with how to best satisfy our core moral values or values in general.

Hence if I believe blacks aren't fully human and are very violent/mean spirited, I will attack or separate myself from them. This is based partially on the value of survival, which I wish to preserve and partially as a result of my belief that blacks threaten my survival. Hence in essence my basic value is a determined, biological, fairly general one, what makes so much variation in practice however, is my mistaken beliefs about how to satisfy my values.

Likewise if I believe delaying certain values now will get me a reward like heaven or make me avoid hell, where they will be later fulfilled I may act very differently then a man who thinks otherwise.

This is not because we have different values, but different beliefs on how to satisfy these values. And from those different beliefs spring different practices.

People that commit genocide, prejudice, slavery and such rarely do it because they value mass murder, like hating people, and just want to see others suffer/opressed. They do it because their victims are "threats", "not really human", "God said so" and for Aristotle on slavery, because that was the only practical way to create a progressive society.

Hence such actions are done not because the values differ, but beliefs concerning them differ. Hitler and the Nazis never said "Kill Jews, even though they are normal/harmless people, just for fun." Hitler said to kill them because otherwise their "race" would be destroyed. Because the Aryans and Jews possesed radical biological and spiritual intrinsic differences, and because it is Gods will. Hitler had to justify his position, make excuses, because Hitler knew most people would feel that unecessary murder and opression was wrong.

Hence perhaps a lot of variation you see may not be so much a matter of differences in core values, I'm not saying such differences do not exist but that at least some of these differences may be based more on beliefs concerning those values, and the practices stemming from such beliefs as opposed to differences in the values themselves.