Morality

[lauren]

I love this one on one debate thing. Normally in a thread the
discussion would become so sidetracked with non related arguments that
the original postulation become so clouded that no one knows what it
was all about.

I read the debate on abortion with great interest. It became clear (to
me) that morality formed the basis. This raised the question in my
mind what morality specifically is. Then I read the debate about
morality. (In both debates I was quite impressed with the arguments
whether I agreed with all of them or not.)

Starting out I found Rapoccio’s point of departure acceptable subject
to a lot of clarification. Then Treebeard introduced semantics. I now,
contrary to before I read the debate, have no idea what is morally
correct and what is not. Powerful politicians complicate the matter
even more by using moral arguments to remove a matter from a moral
sphere to law. When that happens, they are supposedly giving
expression to the morality of the society they represent. Then that
issue is no longer a moral one but becomes law. The problem is that
sometimes such a law may be regarded as immoral and sparks wars.
Once abortion, for instance, is lawful and regulated by legislation is
morality still a consideration?
As I see it, it then becomes a matter of personal conviction whether
to avail yourself or not of this license. It is at this stage, in my
opinion, where one’s culture, background and beliefs come into play.
In some cultures prostitution is legal. Whether you avail yourself of
this service depends on your own personal moral standards. When
visiting such a culture you may avail yourself of this service with a
clean conscience, but when you get back home you are headed for
trouble. This confuses me. If crossing a border changes my action from
acceptable to unacceptable would it not be better to live by my own
convictions rather than that of society in general. I realize this
opens a new debate. Hitler’s actions are a good example. He was of
opinion that he is doing the world a favour, but the world did not
think so. No matter what one does; it is either justified or condemned
by morality.

Can someone explain to me in layman’s terms what the basis of morality
is? In my case it is largely influenced by my religious and cultural
convictions. The wise men of old laid down values. That did not
change, but our judgment of those values has changed considerably over
time. So, I live by my own (warped) value judgments and mostly
according to the Golden Rule. What I would like to see is a clear
definition of what ‘morality’ is regardless of culture, religion or
such considerations. If I remember correctly it was Nietzsche who
applied the test of what if everybody does it. He used the example of
what if I do not repay a debt. If everybody else did not repay the
debt what would the effect be? What if everybody has an abortion? I
have my personal views on euthanasia. What if euthanasia was generally
acceptable?

[Rupert]

We can imagine people who are motivated purely by self-interest. Any
desire to obey the law would come purely from a desire not to suffer
the consequences of getting caught. Any desire to be honest in their
dealings with others would come purely from a desire to reap the
benefits of being perceived as trustworthy. Maybe the world wouldn't
look substantially different if everyone was purely self-interested,
as some economists suggest.

You may find this discussion of psychopathy interesting. These people
aren't especially concerned with moral norms but they're not exactly
the model of enlightened self-interest either, although they're pretty
skilled at getting away with what they do.

http://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html

However, most of us have some kind of conscience. We have some kind of
feeling about what is right and wrong and a desire to be able to think
of ourselves as doing the right thing. In addition to that, there is a
desire to avoid getting caught breaking the law or getting sued; a
desire to maintain good relations with our employers, friends, lovers,
and family members, and so forth. These issues are related but
distinct.

Whether I have the legal right to grow marijuana and smoke it depends
on whether I am in Sydney or Canberra, for example. The morality or
prudence of the decision doesn't (apart from the difference in the
legal risks involved).

I am reading this textbook and finding it interesting.

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Contemporary-Metaethics-Alex-Miller/dp/074562345X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251601430&sr=1-1

> Can someone explain to me in layman’s terms what the basis of morality
> is? In my case it is largely influenced by my religious and cultural
> convictions. The wise men of old laid down values. That did not
> change, but our judgment of those values has changed considerably over
> time. So, I live by my own (warped) value judgments and mostly
> according to the Golden Rule. What I would like to see is a clear
> definition of what ‘morality’ is regardless of culture, religion or
> such considerations. If I remember correctly it was Nietzsche who
> applied the test of what if everybody does it. He used the example of
> what if I do not repay a debt. If everybody else did not repay the
> debt what would the effect be? What if everybody has an abortion? I
> have my personal views on euthanasia. What if euthanasia was generally
> acceptable?

Actually, I think you'll find that was Kant.

http://www.amazon.com/Groundwork-Metaphysic-Morals-Immanuel-Kant/dp/0061766313/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251601374&sr=8-1

There's certainly plenty to look at if you type "abortion euthanasia
Kantianism" into Google; here's one example:

http://www.rsrevision.com/Alevel/ethics/euthanasia/ethics.htm

I guess I thought Peter Singer's discussion of euthanasia and the pros
and cons of legalising it in "Practical Ethics" was pretty good.

[Brock]

On Aug 29, 4:06 am, lauren <lauren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I love this one on one debate thing. Normally in a thread the
> discussion would become so sidetracked with non related arguments that
> the original postulation become so clouded that no one knows what it
> was all about.

I agree. :)

> Can someone explain to me in layman’s terms what the basis of morality
> is?

The basis for morality is humankind's obedience to God.

> What I would like to see is a clear
> definition of what ‘morality’ is regardless of culture, religion or
> such considerations.

I think Jonathan Edwards asked the question in context/relation to God
when he said:

"THERE is no question whatsoever, that is of greater importance to
mankind, and what is more concerns every individual person to be well
resolved in, than this: What are the distinguishing qualifications of
those that are in favor with God, and entitled to his eternal rewards?
Or, which comes to the same thing, What is the nature of true
religion? And wherein do lie the distinguishing notes of that virtue
and holiness that is acceptable in the sight of God?"

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/affections.ii.html

And, of course, we can find answers easily enough:

http://bible.cc

Regards,

Brock

[Treebeard]

On Aug 29, 4:06 am, lauren <lauren...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I love this one on one debate thing. Normally in a thread the
> discussion would become so sidetracked with non related arguments that
> the original postulation become so clouded that no one knows what it
> was all about.
>
> I read the debate on abortion with great interest. It became clear (to
> me) that morality formed the basis. This raised the question in my
> mind what morality specifically is. Then I read the debate about
> morality. (In both debates I was quite impressed with the arguments
> whether I agreed with all of them or not.)
>
> Starting out I found Rapoccio’s point of departure acceptable subject
> to a lot of clarification. Then Treebeard introduced semantics. I now,
> contrary to before I read the debate, have no idea what is morally
> correct and what is not.

Then, I'd say, my job is done [grin]. Although I'd say I less
introduced semantics than introduced the real, deep philosophical
questions that relate to morality. Morality's not an easy subject.
Philosophy has been talking about it for thousands of years and hasn't
come up with a set, solid, certain answer for it. Evolutionary
morality's the latest. All we can do is look to see if the latest
ideas are the right ones or are just the latest fad.

[Treebeard]

On Sep 2, 1:31 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 29, 4:06 am, lauren <lauren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I love this one on one debate thing. Normally in a thread the
> > discussion would become so sidetracked with non related arguments that
> > the original postulation become so clouded that no one knows what it
> > was all about.
>
> I agree. :)
>
> > Can someone explain to me in layman’s terms what the basis of morality
> > is?
>
> The basis for morality is humankind's obedience to God.

I disagree; this cannot be true if one accepts ANYTHING about the Adam
and Eve story, since the conclusion of that is that we humans have the
independent ability to determine what is right and what is wrong.
That implies an indepedent moral basis.

[Brock Organ]

I like how the Bible puts it:

"The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His
commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring
every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good
or evil."

http://nasb.scripturetext.com/ecclesiastes/12.htm

Regards,

Brock

[Answer_42]

On Sep 2, 1:49 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > I love this one on one debate thing. Normally in a thread the
> > discussion would become so sidetracked with non related arguments that
> > the original postulation become so clouded that no one knows what it
> > was all about.
>
> > I read the debate on abortion with great interest. It became clear (to
> > me) that morality formed the basis. This raised the question in my
> > mind what morality specifically is. Then I read the debate about
> > morality. (In both debates I was quite impressed with the arguments
> > whether I agreed with all of them or not.)
>
> > Starting out I found Rapoccio’s point of departure acceptable subject
> > to a lot of clarification. Then Treebeard introduced semantics. I now,
> > contrary to before I read the debate, have no idea what is morally
> > correct and what is not.
>
> Then, I'd say, my job is done [grin].  Although I'd say I less
> introduced semantics than introduced the real, deep philosophical
> questions that relate to morality.  Morality's not an easy subject.
> Philosophy has been talking about it for thousands of years and hasn't
> come up with a set, solid, certain answer for it.

It is not until recently that morality has been viewed as one of the
many aspects of the evolution of the human species. I believe that in
times past, philosophers were always looking for/referring to some
sort of absolute/objective morality. This, in my opinion is a pipe
dream.

This is simply due to the fact that morality is a part of the
evolutionary process of the human species, alongside cognitive
abilities.
It changes as we change.
Yesterday's moral action may well be immoral today and vice versa.

There is no objective absolute morality.

> Evolutionary
> morality's the latest.  

And probably the correct one in the sense that the evolution of the
human species does explain how morality evolved along with us. A
changing environment, along with changing priorities, have produced
different moral codes for different people in different places at
different times.

I think that the only objective part of human morality are those
aspects of morality that are linked to the fact that we are a
cooperative species. As such, there are some basic aspects to morality
that will not work in a cooperative species, or else the species will
no longer be cooperative.
This is what I believe rappoccio was talking about. Empathy is the
basis of morality, not because we empathize before making a moral
decision today; but, evolutionary speaking, the fact that we can be
empathic as allowed our species to develop moral codes that ensured
the survival of the species as a whole and has made us very
successful. Back when the concept of morality did not exist, before
meta-cognition, human beings were nevertheless moral, in their own
way. Some actions were shun and deemed unacceptable by the group. Back
then, empathy was what made this possible, i.e. most people felt the
same way about certain actions, and they knew it.

Now, of course, because we can rationalize all this, it has indeed
become more complex, however, evolution is still taking place, and so
morality is evolving with us.

It is usually people who want to push a divine agenda that talk about
absolute objective morality, their favourite divine creature being the
provider of the said absolute morality.
To me, this is nonsesne, morality is what happens naturally as soon as
a species develops interaction between the species members. Some sort
of code becomes established, even if the species members are not
actually intellectually aware that it is the case.

> All we can do is look to see if the latest
> ideas are the right ones or are just the latest fad.

Yes, but one has to distinguish between morality as it applies to an
individual and morality as it applies to the group to which the
individual belongs. We are in a constant flux between deciding what is
good for me and what is good for my group.

However, the current morality is always the latest fad in the sense
that it is bound to change at some point in the future; it would be
appalling if it did not, which is why morality based on religious
dogmatic statements is to be discarded as soon as possible, it refuses
to change.
________________________________________________
Being an atheist is a matter not of moral choice, but of human
obligation.
-- John Fowles

[Treebeard]

On Sep 2, 2:21 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

Considering that how God knew that Adam and Eve had eaten from the
tree was from them doing something that was more morally proper
without being told to by God (hiding their nakedness), while obedience
is good if you don't have an idea what morality is, that doesn't mean
that we can't or shouldn't understand it in the first place. Thus, we
still need to and still can answer the question for ourselves.

[Brock Organ]

I just consider that morality and ethics, right and wrong are
objectively independent of our understanding of it. In particular, I
object to philosophies that argue that right and wrong are simply
humanistic convention.

Regards,

Brock