What is Morality?

[Crazy Anglican]

Hooray, more squabbling about religious beliefs and M
orality which is fun
I liked some of the comments from M0ctave

I suggest m0ctave consider changing his member pseudonym to m0ctavious
Tomorrow night, Wednesday 24th January is the first performance of my new comedy act at Rhino Room in the 3rd South Australian heat of the Australian National RAW Comedy Competition at Rhino Room.
RAW Comedy Competition is restricted to amateur comedians and linked to Melbourne International Comedy Festival.
State and Territory final winners are invited to perform in a big comedy show that is part of the Melbourne International Comedy Festival
It's a pathway for amateur comedians towards earning an income as a comedian.

Second performance will be at Chuckles Comedy show at Wakanda Bar on Saturday 27th January

Break a leg. MM.

[Flash2024]

I am a god.
I guess I have as much right to argue that as anyone who is a believer in Christianity has to argue that a man, perhaps born 2000 years or so ago, is one.

Why is Christianity so prevalent? It is the religion of the winners, the colonizers. And there was a whole hell of a lot of colonization going on over the centuries. A good way to keep the poor in line and a good way to subjugate others, including women--starting with Exodus "thy husband shall rule over thee" to early Christian (Male) leaders sidelining women into subservient roles.
So why is Christianity so prevalent? It was forced onto many, and many saw it as the religion of the winners/colonizers/powerful and adopted it to try to benefit from it. Others, say "vikings" saw the Christian god as more powerful in battle. Hell, even Constantine supposedly converted after the Battle of Milvian Bridge, when he believed God gave him victory in a battle. And there goes the whole Eastern Roman civilization, and then later the Holy Roman Empire, etc etc.

So the is this the source of Christian morality? Don't fool yourself. I'd rather not look back at biblical and Christian history for my moral compass. Yes, we westerners share Judeo-Christian values and mores. And yes, Christ's teachings in many ways are wonderful (too bad most Christians don't really believe or follow them--MAGA and Southern Baptists, for example?). It is easy to say my morals are such and such. Most of the time it is just words uttered by hypocrites as regards Christ and His words as passed down by the disciples (what proof do we have these are Christ's words, anyway?)

And morals are not universal. There are societies who happily cannibalized, happily performed ritual human sacrifice. Some of us believe in abortion, some think a woman should die before doing so (and make laws to enforce this). Many in the US believed miscegenation was immoral. Some people now equate being gay with bestiality (Christians, again?). Don't be provincial and equate your views with others due to YOUR beliefs. I think a half billion Buddhists and a billion Hindus may disagree. Let alone the remaining animists and us good ol' atheists and agnostics. And natural scientists.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

And morals are not universal. There are societies who happily cannibalized, happily performed ritual human sacrifice. Some of us believe in abortion, some think a woman should die before doing so (and make laws to enforce this). Many in the US believed miscegenation was immoral. Some people now equate being gay with bestiality (Christians, again?).

I wonder if you could elaborate on this?

A few folks in this thread seem to be committed relativists and it is a position I don't understand. You seem to have a viewpoint from which you feel comfortable making at least some moral statements (e.g. your points about the goodness of some of Jesus' teachings, and the badness of some Christian organizations).

To me, the existence of moral disagreement does not necessarily mean an absence of real morality. An alternative explanation is that there really might be something "right" or "wrong" about human sacrifice and that some individuals or societies really could be mistaken in their view.

I don't have a totally compelling way to confidently validate what is "right" or "wrong", but I have moral intuitions (e.g., about the badness of suffering, or the logic of the Golden Rule) that make me fairly confident about the objective wrongness of at least some things - I don't spend a lot of time wondering whether the Nazis' plan for humanity was actually morally righteous.

[Flash2024]

No offense, you obviously think deeply about this. But I think it is a bit presumptuous to equate Nazi's beliefs with those others who simply live(d) their lives in different cultural and social circumstances and may not share Christian or even Western mores. I'm hesitant to categorize a lot of things as "absolute" as that tends to lead to intolerance. Hell, even physics evolves--Newton and relativity, Einstein and quantum mechanics. Let alone social sciences, ethics, and philosophy.
Maybe our problem is trying to pigeonhole the definition of morality. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
There does not seem to be much reason to think that a single definition of morality will be applicable to all moral discussions. One reason for this is that “morality” seems to be used in two distinct broad senses: a descriptive sense and a normative sense. More particularly, the term “morality” can be used either

"descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people.
Which of these two senses of “morality” a moral philosopher is using plays a crucial, although sometimes unacknowledged, role in the development of an ethical theory. If one uses “morality” in its descriptive sense, and therefore uses it to refer to codes of conduct actually put forward by distinct groups or societies, one will almost certainly deny that there is a universal morality that applies to all human beings. The descriptive use of “morality” is the one used by anthropologists when they report on the morality of the societies that they study"
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

So maybe I am using the Descriptive definition and you, the Normative one? I spent several years in graduate studies in social anthropology (before I dropped out and became a dog doctor! :) ) and thus find it hard to get away from relativism.
Defining the definition of morality may be the key.

[Flash2024]

No offense, you obviously think deeply about this. But I think it is a bit presumptuous to equate Nazi's beliefs with those others who simply live(d) their lives in different cultural and social circumstances and may not share Christian or even Western mores. I'm hesitant to categorize a lot of things as "absolute" as that tends to lead to intolerance. Hell, even physics evolves--Newton and relativity, Einstein and quantum mechanics. Let alone social sciences, ethics, and philosophy.
Maybe our problem is trying to pigeonhole the definition of morality. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
There does not seem to be much reason to think that a single definition of morality will be applicable to all moral discussions. One reason for this is that “morality” seems to be used in two distinct broad senses: a descriptive sense and a normative sense. More particularly, the term “morality” can be used either

"descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people.
Which of these two senses of “morality” a moral philosopher is using plays a crucial, although sometimes unacknowledged, role in the development of an ethical theory. If one uses “morality” in its descriptive sense, and therefore uses it to refer to codes of conduct actually put forward by distinct groups or societies, one will almost certainly deny that there is a universal morality that applies to all human beings. The descriptive use of “morality” is the one used by anthropologists when they report on the morality of the societies that they study"
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

So maybe I am using the Descriptive definition and you, the Normative one? I spent several years in graduate studies in social anthropology (before I dropped out and became a dog doctor! :) ) and thus find it hard to get away from relativism.
Defining the definition of morality may be the key.

But still, the Encyclopedia says " would be put forward by all rational people" and even here I have to say--rational to whom?

[Flash2024]

sorry for the double post. Won't allow editing? Still the post was to end with
"But still, the Encyclopedia says " would be put forward by all rational people" and even here I have to say--rational to whom?" as in the second repeated one.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

No offense, you obviously think deeply about this. But I think it is a bit presumptuous to equate Nazi's beliefs with those others who simply live(d) their lives in different cultural and social circumstances and may not share Christian or even Western mores. I'm hesitant to categorize a lot of things as "absolute" as that tends to lead to intolerance. Hell, even physics evolves--Newton and relativity, Einstein and quantum mechanics. Let alone social sciences, ethics, and philosophy.

Please don't worry about offense, this is all just fascinating to me and I'm genuinely curious in the best arguments for relativism.

I definitely did not equate Nazism to simply being non-Christian. I chose Nazism as a clear case where relativism really seems to break down - I think most people have the strong intuition that whether the Nazi's agenda was good or bad does not hinge on what the Nazis themselves thought of it.

I wonder if you could clarify your point re: physics and other sciences? My sense is that most science really can discover facts about the universe. Maybe we can never perfectly describe any phenomena, but I strongly suspect that we get a more-accurate picture of the world over time.

Maybe our problem is trying to pigeonhole the definition of morality. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
There does not seem to be much reason to think that a single definition of morality will be applicable to all moral discussions. One reason for this is that “morality” seems to be used in two distinct broad senses: a descriptive sense and a normative sense. More particularly, the term “morality” can be used either

"descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people.
Which of these two senses of “morality” a moral philosopher is using plays a crucial, although sometimes unacknowledged, role in the development of an ethical theory. If one uses “morality” in its descriptive sense, and therefore uses it to refer to codes of conduct actually put forward by distinct groups or societies, one will almost certainly deny that there is a universal morality that applies to all human beings. The descriptive use of “morality” is the one used by anthropologists when they report on the morality of the societies that they study"
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

So maybe I am using the Descriptive definition and you, the Normative one? I spent several years in graduate studies in social anthropology (before I dropped out and became a dog doctor! :) ) and thus find it hard to get away from relativism.
Defining the definition of morality may be the key.

Definitely, if you're using the word "morality" descriptively to mean, by definition, just customs or norms, then I can't disagree with your definition.

I think the more interesting question is whether a society's or individual's "morality", as defined above, can be judged against some objective Morality. I think it can, but I have extreme humility about my ability to be the judge of it. And yet, that uncertainty doesn't extend to the point where I feel confused about whether the world is actually better without Nazism, chattel slavery, etc.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

But still, the Encyclopedia says " would be put forward by all rational people" and even here I have to say--rational to whom?

Sorry, I neglected this point above.

I think I understand your argument: the person or group defining "rational" gets a trump card that makes the appeal to rationality seem subjective or self-serving.

But maybe there are some near-universal facts about humans that form the basis of a truly objective way to discuss some issues rationally. If all humans have the capacity to suffer and suffering really is "bad", then it truly follows that violence for no countervailing reason would be wrong everywhere. This seems like a moral Truth, but it's an extremely limited one.

[Flash2024]

Again:
"normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people."
and then we have to presume what "rational is?? Talk about a circular conundrum! We define normative morality by what a "rational" actor would believe, then we have to define "rational"! How? Again, we come back to Relativism. Hell, I didn't even know this was a debate until I ran across this thread. But IF, according to Stanford anyway, "rational" actors define Normative morality, who am I to define rational? I mean, really? This is the same argument as the morality one!

You mention "moral intuitions" above. This is in the same category. Very relative.

If pressed, I would say, for myself, there are probably some absolutes--thou shall not kill (one's own immediate family). Thou shall not fornicate with (one's own) children, perhaps a few others. But these would not really be Christian or religious proscriptions--more societal and cultural as society really can't thrive if these are practiced regularly. Like the proscription about eating shellfish--from God or because people got sick? I suspect the latter.

As far as science--yes, science aims to discover facts about the universe. But what is sometimes considered dogma can be shaken to the core---who, in the 19th C, thought Newton's Laws didn't always apply? But they don't--ask Einstein and Bohr. If you are interested in this type of thing, a couple suggestions for us laypeople--Bill Bryson and A Short History of Nearly Everything and the books (stemming from the This View Of Life articles in Natural History Magazine) by Dr. Stephen J Gould, a paleontologist.

[Flash2024]

But maybe there are some near-universal facts about humans that form the basis of a truly objective way to discuss some issues rationally. If all humans have the capacity to suffer and suffering really is "bad", then it truly follows that violence for no countervailing reason would be wrong everywhere. This seems like a moral Truth, but it's an extremely limited one.

I'd like to think that violence for the sake of violence, for no reason but to cause suffering, is morally an absolute no no. I suspect it may be, but then again when it is practiced (as it often is or has been) it is practiced couched in other terms--the Spanish Inquisition, Nazi-ism, dictatorial communism, racism, etc etc. Yes, I cannot think of a society which to be violent for fun is anything but psychotic.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Again:
"normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people."
and then we have to presume what "rational is?? Talk about a circular conundrum! We define normative morality by what a "rational" actor would believe, then we have to define "rational"! How? Again, we come back to Relativism. Hell, I didn't even know this was a debate until I ran across this thread. But IF, according to Stanford anyway, "rational" actors define Normative morality, who am I to define rational? I mean, really? This is the same argument as the morality one!

I think we might just have a difference of opinion here. I think that humans have enough in common to make at least some genuine rational appeals that aren't culturally specific. The word "rationality" isn't useless. Math is the most obvious instance of this. Hard sciences too - people can be (and regularly are) convinced by evidence.

My contention is that morality might be subject to rationality, if only in a very limited sense. If I posit that suffering is actually "bad" in a moral sense, then a rational person and informed person judging a practice that causes immense suffering for no discernible benefit (e.g., human sacrifice to make the sun rise) would have to find it "bad" too.

You could ask how can you be sure a rational person would find suffering to be "bad", to which I would just have to appeal to the possibility that this is a ground truth that is discoverable in ourselves and is part of our evolved nature.

You mention "moral intuitions" above. This is in the same category. Very relative.

This was intentional. I put very little stock in my own feelings about most moral issues, because I suspect I could be wrong in an objective sense.

If pressed, I would say, for myself, there are probably some absolutes--thou shall not kill (one's own immediate family). Thou shall not fornicate with (one's own) children, perhaps a few others. But these would not really be Christian or religious proscriptions--more societal and cultural as society really can't thrive if these are practiced regularly. Like the proscription about eating shellfish--from God or because people got sick? I suspect the latter.

I would see these things as more genuine moral truths about humans. It is actually wrong to inbreed too much or to murder our close kin because it fails, in every case, to promote human flourishing basically no matter what your definition of "flourishing" is. Some cultures can have different customs within the bounds of incest and kin-killing, but it will necessarily be bounded by the real consequences of these actions (e.g., first cousin partnering societies seem to be able to flourish indefinitely, though at some cost to fitness, while no society has ever thrived on sibling partnering).

As far as science--yes, science aims to discover facts about the universe. But what is sometimes considered dogma can be shaken to the core---who, in the 19th C, thought Newton's Laws didn't always apply? But they don't--ask Einstein and Bohr. If you are interested in this type of thing, a couple suggestions for us laypeople--Bill Bryson and A Short History of Nearly Everything and the books (stemming from the This View Of Life articles in Natural History Magazine) by Dr. Stephen J Gould, a paleontologist.

I maybe don't understand your point here. I think we're both saying that any particular scientific dogma of today is almost certainly partly wrong or at least partial, and yet we both agree that each time we build upon a phenomena with new layers of scientific description we really are more-accurately describing an objective reality.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I'd like to think that violence for the sake of violence, for no reason but to cause suffering, is morally an absolute no no. I suspect it may be, but then again when it is practiced (as it often is or has been) it is practiced couched in other terms--the Spanish Inquisition, Nazi-ism, dictatorial communism, racism, etc etc. Yes, I cannot think of a society which to be violent for fun is anything but psychotic.

Right, here is what looks like at least one objective fact about morality. A society would have bad morality if it encouraged wanton torture. This is the easiest possible case.

I don't think it's actually that much of a leap to go from an insight like this to discovering the objective wrongness of something like chattel slavery. I agree there would be no way to finally prove that the perpetual enrichment of European slave-holders wasn't a commensurate "good" to justify the "bad" slavery entailed, but I think there are good reasons to believe that an informed person reasoning on the basis of near-human universals (e.g., aversion to suffering) could find the institution to be "wrong".

I think, for example, that ending chattel slavery was genuine objective moral progress. Many people were reasoned into the belief that slavery was wrong when they were exposed to the real humanity of African slaves and the depth of their suffering. It wasn't changed from "wrong" to "right" just because it became fashionable to hold the other view, but because the genuinely "wrong" belief that slavery was okay was predicated on widespread ignorance about the humanity of Africans are and how much they were suffering.

[Flash2024]

sociobiology is another interesting way to look at some of this. The idea of the biological basis of behaviors has been in some cases been put on a back burner or discredited by those who look at it as a type of eugenics--tying in biology and behavior are, for example, the basis of many racist theories. But there are certain parallels to this discussion.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/sociobiology.html

[Flash2024]

real quick, as I'm at work, but saying that aversion to suffering is an absolute in any way, I believe, is incorrect. I would say the suffering on oneself and one's family, one's clan, one's society even may be an absolute--in general (obviously there are specific exceptions--if we look at the individual and not at the societal level, all falls apart as many individuals over time have relished the suffering of those closer to them). But the suffering of "the other"--the other society, the other nation, the other clan--well, there is a lot of evidence for saying that suffering is perfectly well accepted and moral at times.
Hence your chattel slavery. Wilberforce and absolutionists would say "Yay, the slaver has grown moral" when slavery was abolished. Did he, really? Or forced by laws and circumstance? Are there still among us those who would advocate a return? I think so. And if you are a blatant racist, but don't advocate slavery, well--how much are your morals improved, really?

[Flash2024]

As far as science, you are right, science builds on itself. But sometimes scientists (and laypeople) think science is a layer of bricks which build an immobile wall. Instead sometimes bricks at the base or in the middle have to be pulled out and replaced, or just left as gaps, as new information is gathered.

[Crazy Anglican]

I am a god.
I guess I have as much right to argue that as anyone who is a believer in Christianity has to argue that a man, perhaps born 2000 years or so ago, is one.

Agreed, you have the right to argue whatever you choose to. So what is your argument that you're a god?

If I am understanding your statement, then I think it might be a misapplication of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. When the Flying Spaghetti Monster worked as part of a court case, it was used to point out that a secular government (the U.S. government in particular) cannot show favoritism to one religion over any other. Thus somebody could make up the Flying Spaghetti Monster and worship it, and the government would have to treat it as equivalent to any other religion. That's true. There is no state religion in the U.S. and that's a good thing.

The argument falls apart though when we take away the perspective "This is the correct stance that a secular government (its entities and policy makers) must take when dealing with religions according to its own constitution." and replace it (that you are apparently bordering on) with "I can make up anything and it will be equally valid to any religion". at that point you have the problem of admitting that you just made something up and having to prove that it's equivalent to any existing (much less one particular) religion. Essentially, yes you can argue that, but it doesn't significantly weaken the claims of any existing religion. The rest of us might be mistaken, but we aren't outright fabricating a claim.

[Crazy Anglican]

Why is Christianity so prevalent? It is the religion of the winners, the colonizers. And there was a whole hell of a lot of colonization going on over the centuries. A good way to keep the poor in line and a good way to subjugate others, including women--starting with Exodus "thy husband shall rule over thee" to early Christian (Male) leaders sidelining women into subservient roles.
So why is Christianity so prevalent? It was forced onto many, and many saw it as the religion of the winners/colonizers/powerful and adopted it to try to benefit from it. Others, say "vikings" saw the Christian god as more powerful in battle. Hell, even Constantine supposedly converted after the Battle of Milvian Bridge, when he believed God gave him victory in a battle. And there goes the whole Eastern Roman civilization, and then later the Holy Roman Empire, etc etc.

I'm not sure if that's the tone you intended, but this seems to come off as a bit of a complaint. You've basically asked the question "why do so many people embrace Christianity?", and then, as someone who doesn't embrace Christianity, you put forth suppositions to answer the question that unsurprisingly have more to do with showing Christianity in a bad light than giving a good faith attempt to answer the question. For instance, did you ask any Christians if glory in battle, subjugating the poor, and opposing women's rights are their main reasons for embracing their faith?

[Crazy Anglican]

So the is this the source of Christian morality? Don't fool yourself. I'd rather not look back at biblical and Christian history for my moral compass. Yes, we westerners share Judeo-Christian values and mores. And yes, Christ's teachings in many ways are wonderful (too bad most Christians don't really believe or follow them--MAGA and Southern Baptists, for example?).

Is what the source of Christian morality? I'm not sure where you were going with that, are you asking if the desire for conquest and subjugation of women and the poor the source of Christian morality? Obviously not because I don't know many Christians that would put those up on the list of their motivations.

As to finding a moral compass in biblical study you could do a lot worse, but I don't think the purpose of the discussion is to say there is anything wrong with your particular moral compass or mine.

I'm glad we agree on Judeo-Christian values being a shared source of values and mores in the west. Also that you think Christ's teachings are mostly good as well.

I'm a little concerned that you equate MAGA with Christianity. I'm quite sure more Christians oppose them than embrace them. I'm not sure what you have against Southern Baptists. Some of the finest people I've met were Southern Baptist.

It is easy to say my morals are such and such. Most of the time it is just words uttered by hypocrites as regards Christ and His words as passed down by the disciples (what proof do we have these are Christ's words, anyway?)

Did you mean to imply that only Christians are hypocrits? That's kind of how this reads.

As to the reliability of the Gospels, it is pretty widely attested to. Multiple witnesses, horrible deaths, nobody recounts any of it even when given a free pass if they do. etc.

[Crazy Anglican]

And morals are not universal. There are societies who happily cannibalized, happily performed ritual human sacrifice. Some of us believe in abortion, some think a woman should die before doing so (and make laws to enforce this). Many in the US believed miscegenation was immoral. Some people now equate being gay with bestiality (Christians, again?). Don't be provincial and equate your views with others due to YOUR beliefs. I think a half billion Buddhists and a billion Hindus may disagree. Let alone the remaining animists and us good ol' atheists and agnostics. And natural scientists.

I don't think anybody did or would argue that morals are universal. There are obvious differences in how various groups and individuals approach morality. The argument, as I understood it, was are their absolutes?

[Flash2024]

The Gospels are widely attested to? That they are Christ's words? That is patently impossible to ascertain. Sure, we can assume they are the apostles' words. That is not what I said.
Do I imply only Christians are hypocrites? God no, plenty of those everywhere. MAGA and Christianity--well, pardon but the Right Nationalist Christians are the most vocal. I grew up in an Anglican Washington DC church back in the 60s and 70s (St Stephens of the Incarnate) which was a march and protest liberal flock. I sure wish I heard more from this type. But I don't.
About Christian morality--it sure seems difficult to want to explore too deeply the roots of morality in Christian history if we look at the sheer violence done in its name over the years. Good too, but what a historical trainwreck. I just read a book about the conquest to the Aztecs by Cortes, et al. Wow. Just one small small example. This is our history?
As far as the embracing Christianity quote... that is fact. Sure, it is to make a point, as most facts are.
I'm not going to argue pros and cons of religion with someone named Crazy Anglican.