What is Morality?

[CaptainFritz28]

OK, one more. A good point, Will. Again, evil because they knew what they were doing (I'm talking about the leaders, not a lot of the sheep) was immoral. If a society, outside of Western norms, say a hypothetical mythical historical Teutonic society, acted this way toward "outsiders", the "other", within their (admittedly screwed up from our perspective) religious/moral system--would it be morally wrong? Not for them, I guess. It is hard to place oneself so far out of bounds of our belief systems to try to comprehend that. Because we are are colored by our belief systems.
But I know a bunch of skinheads hanging out on the corner then beating the crap out of an Asian at least suspect they are in the wrong, and revel in that aspect of what they do. Microsocieties like that may be in a strange gray zone, as were fanatic burgermeisters in 1934 Germany (and many MAGAs today) who parrot slogans and actions they think are acceptable due to their leaders' saying that is acceptable--even if the leaders know it is not. Why do they follow? Fear, greed--many reasons.
I grew up as a cultural relativist--back in the earlier days of social anthropology, that was all the rage. It has obviously been to some degree discredited--say an anthropologist in 1930 witnessed a sacrifice--are they supposed to step in and try to stop it, or document it? And what about a modern social scientist in the same position? I suspect they would differ. (as an aside, I wonder if there has been a Far Side covering that scenario?)
Remember, too, Esquire, that although there are dangers of relativism (and remember this whole argument was new to me 3 days ago and I am winging it), there are real real dangers of absolutism as well. Absolutism can breed intolerance. If I do believe in an absolute morality, and I encounter a new society or peoples who do not share it, are they wrong? Should they be punished? What if these peoples live within our own society? For me it is perhaps immoral to hit a child. For others, it is may not only be routine, but a sign of good parenting. What if I burn a bible? Certainly it is my right (but very very impolite). But then a pastor burns a Quran.
The point is I don't really know. AND LIKE MOST THINGS IN LIFE--there are really no definite answers. Hence philosophical debate. Probably, there is some middle ground (ah but then is that relativistic? Or is there being a middle ground, a grey area to all this, an absolute?

So what you're saying is - there is an absolute for morality, and we all have an inherent nature to have an inlking of what it is, But you don't know all the specifics, which is perfectly understandable.

Might I inquire why the Bible doesn't foot the bill for you?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

OK, one more. A good point, Will. Again, evil because they knew what they were doing (I'm talking about the leaders, not a lot of the sheep) was immoral. If a society, outside of Western norms, say a hypothetical mythical historical Teutonic society, acted this way toward "outsiders", the "other", within their (admittedly screwed up from our perspective) religious/moral system--would it be morally wrong? Not for them, I guess. It is hard to place oneself so far out of bounds of our belief systems to try to comprehend that. Because we are are colored by our belief systems.

This all seems to hinge a lot on totally arbitrary lines drawn around what a "society" is.

Were the Nazis evil? Well, not if their society is only comprised of Nazis according to this worldview. But of course they existed alongside Germans who did not like Nazism and minorities who obviously didn't like it - are these people part of the "society" that gets to determine what is right or wrong or are they the "other"?

If I change the lens to zoom out to "European society" were the Nazis wrong then and they should have known better because some of their neighbours could have told them so?

At one point there were no Nazis, then there were some - how soon could the earliest Nazis constitute a "society" that then gets to define the rightness and wrongness of its own actions?

What if I just decide that there is only one society, the human race? Did I just bootstrap an objective moral code out of a relativistic one?

But I know a bunch of skinheads hanging out on the corner then beating the crap out of an Asian at least suspect they are in the wrong, and revel in that aspect of what they do. Microsocieties like that may be in a strange gray zone, as were fanatic burgermeisters in 1934 Germany (and many MAGAs today) who parrot slogans and actions they think are acceptable due to their leaders' saying that is acceptable--even if the leaders know it is not. Why do they follow? Fear, greed--many reasons.

Are they actually wrong if cultural relativism is right? If there were just more skinheads in this analogy, are they then actually acting morally?

I grew up as a cultural relativist--back in the earlier days of social anthropology, that was all the rage. It has obviously been to some degree discredited--say an anthropologist in 1930 witnessed a sacrifice--are they supposed to step in and try to stop it, or document it? And what about a modern social scientist in the same position? I suspect they would differ. (as an aside, I wonder if there has been a Far Side covering that scenario?)

We should have a lot of humility in understanding our own biases and the ways in which there might be multiple ways of defining the "good".

On average, mainland Chinese people spit a lot more than is considered polite where I grew up. I hesitate to say they are "wrong" for it since it seems to be a matter of little consequence and competing values (the rights of the spitter vs. the rights of those grossed out by spit).

I would feel less compelled to give a charitable view to a practice like ritual sacrifice. The consequences are more meaningful, some of the beliefs supporting the practice might be factually wrong, the rights of the sacrificed don't seem to be well considered, etc.

Remember, too, Esquire, that although there are dangers of relativism (and remember this whole argument was new to me 3 days ago and I am winging it), there are real real dangers of absolutism as well. Absolutism can breed intolerance. If I do believe in an absolute morality, and I encounter a new society or peoples who do not share it, are they wrong? Should they be punished? What if these peoples live within our own society? For me it is perhaps immoral to hit a child. For others, it is may not only be routine, but a sign of good parenting. What if I burn a bible? Certainly it is my right (but very very impolite). But then a pastor burns a Quran.

In my view this is beside the point. Either there is morality or there isn't and that doesn't hinge on whether the people who believe one way or another act in a way that comports with your vision of morality.

The point is I don't really know. AND LIKE MOST THINGS IN LIFE--there are really no definite answers. Hence philosophical debate. Probably, there is some middle ground (ah but then is that relativistic? Or is there being a middle ground, a grey area to all this, an absolute?

But why even debate if you're a relativist? The only purpose of debate is to get close to an actual truth.

[CaptainFritz28]

Absolutism can breed intolerance.

So what you are telling me is that your trouble with morality being absolute is that it means that there are absolute moral wrongs. So what, then, if it is intolerant? Should we be tolerant of murderers? Of Nazis? Of cannibals? Of those who kidnap people and sell them into slavery?

I would suspect (and very much hope) that you say no, we should not tolerate these people's actions. There are many things which should not be tolerated, and I believe that what should not be tolerated is that which is immoral, based on an absolute standard that is not confined to the evil nature of humans and human society. Without moral objectivity, there is only anarchy.

[Flash2024]

Fritz, the bible--assuming the New Testament is what you mean by that--is full of nice metaphors and parables, some teachings many should regard (but unfortunately many do not who profess to) as an exemplary way to live one's life. Also passed down by Apostles, so not necessarily the word of Christ--if you regard the Apostles as inherently infallible and without bias, I can't do that as I don't have faith. My main gripe is not with the bible--like the constitution, it can be drawn on to pretty much provide "proof" of any argument--for example, slaveholders emphasized some meanings: Ephesians 6:5 reads,

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.”

while slaves used other parts to argue for fair treatment and even manumission (read some Eugene Genovese, historian of slavery).
So that is a powerful document.
My problem is not even with Christianity.
My problem is, and always has been, how Christianity is used and has been used to subjugate, colonize, and discriminate--not due to the inherent document itself but by "Christians" who obviously never read it, did not comprehend it, or even worse, used it to hurt others and aggrandize themselves or their people. That is certainly not limited to Christianity. I could say the same about Islam and how it spread at the point of a sword, and if I knew enough I could probably find fault with other religions as well. And not even limited to religion. It's just human nature. I'm a cynic. And, in my experience, living, reading, being in the deep South but raised a Yankee, well...I think the world would be better without it--or with people who actually practice what Christ taught. This is not a personal attack against anyone. Just my thoughts.

[Flash2024]

Absolutism can breed intolerance.

So what you are telling me is that your trouble with morality being absolute is that it means that there are absolute moral wrongs. So what, then, if it is intolerant? Should we be tolerant of murderers? Of Nazis? Of cannibals? Of those who kidnap people and sell them into slavery?

I would suspect (and very much hope) that you say no, we should not tolerate these people's actions. There are many things which should not be tolerated, and I believe that what should not be tolerated is that which is immoral, based on an absolute standard that is not confined to the evil nature of humans and human society. Without moral objectivity, there is only anarchy.

No, that is not what I am saying. If you read further, you would see that I said I do not know, and suspect there is a truth somewhere between absolutism and relativism. Murder of whom? Another clan member? A stranger passing through your lands, using your wells? Is that indeed murder? Or a justified killing. To make your point, you need to define murder. It always comes down to definitions. Of course we should not be tolerant of Nazis--as, again, I have said, they are acting contrary to THEIR society's morals--that of 20th century Germany and the West--of which they were part. A better question is--for example--was Genghis Kahn immoral? His hordes raped, pillaged, and killed at will. If his ravages indeed led to 40 million deaths, he outdid Hitler and Stalin. But he was acting within his and his own peoples' moral sphere. He cared for his family, and practiced cultural and religious tolerance. I am not saying he was a moral being. But it is worth a discussion.

[Crazy Anglican]

And why should I argue the objectivity or relativity of morals with someone named Flash2024?

lol, or Capt. Fritz for that matter? Why should I talk seriously with someone named Capt. Fritz? I mean MajorMitchell outranks him, let’s go above his head

Not in the navy, he doesn't! :D

But yeah that's my point. We all have silly usernames, so why should they have any bearing on our argumentation?

It's okay, Flash isn't the first person to try applying literalism to my username. It's rare, but it happens.

[grovah]

The the OP, my definition of "morality" is simply "the difference between right and wrong".

I can agree with that.

I think this definition of morality is quite clear. What is not so clear, is perhaps the definitions of right and wrong?

[Crazy Anglican]

The the OP, my definition of "morality" is simply "the difference between right and wrong".

I can agree with that.

I think this definition of morality is quite clear. What is not so clear, is perhaps the definitions of right and wrong?

I think you're right grovah, at least in any way that we could reasonably agree on. There are those easy lowball answers that we can agree on genocide is a bad thing, for instance.

The fact that we don't agree doesn't necessarily mean that their isn't an actual independent or absolute right and wrong. There isn't a universal morality, but there could be an absolute one.

[CaptainFritz28]

Fritz, the bible--assuming the New Testament is what you mean by that--is full of nice metaphors and parables, some teachings many should regard (but unfortunately many do not who profess to) as an exemplary way to live one's life. Also passed down by Apostles, so not necessarily the word of Christ--if you regard the Apostles as inherently infallible and without bias, I can't do that as I don't have faith. My main gripe is not with the bible--like the constitution, it can be drawn on to pretty much provide "proof" of any argument--for example, slaveholders emphasized some meanings: Ephesians 6:5 reads,

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.”

while slaves used other parts to argue for fair treatment and even manumission (read some Eugene Genovese, historian of slavery).
So that is a powerful document.
My problem is not even with Christianity.
My problem is, and always has been, how Christianity is used and has been used to subjugate, colonize, and discriminate--not due to the inherent document itself but by "Christians" who obviously never read it, did not comprehend it, or even worse, used it to hurt others and aggrandize themselves or their people. That is certainly not limited to Christianity. I could say the same about Islam and how it spread at the point of a sword, and if I knew enough I could probably find fault with other religions as well. And not even limited to religion. It's just human nature. I'm a cynic. And, in my experience, living, reading, being in the deep South but raised a Yankee, well...I think the world would be better without it--or with people who actually practice what Christ taught. This is not a personal attack against anyone. Just my thoughts.

I entirely agree with you here (except that the Bible can be used to justify slavery - see my other extensive points on that). I agree that Christianity has been used as a tool for great evil, and for the opposite of what it actually stands for. That said, then, I still ask - if you agree that the world would be far better if people actually followed what the Bible says, then why should the Bible not be a standard of objective morality?

(By the way, I'm incredibly glad that you have a nuanced enough view of Christianity [and this goes for other religions, too] to tell the difference between its teachings and what people use its name for, or pretend it is.)

[CaptainFritz28]

Absolutism can breed intolerance.

So what you are telling me is that your trouble with morality being absolute is that it means that there are absolute moral wrongs. So what, then, if it is intolerant? Should we be tolerant of murderers? Of Nazis? Of cannibals? Of those who kidnap people and sell them into slavery?

I would suspect (and very much hope) that you say no, we should not tolerate these people's actions. There are many things which should not be tolerated, and I believe that what should not be tolerated is that which is immoral, based on an absolute standard that is not confined to the evil nature of humans and human society. Without moral objectivity, there is only anarchy.

No, that is not what I am saying. If you read further, you would see that I said I do not know, and suspect there is a truth somewhere between absolutism and relativism. Murder of whom? Another clan member? A stranger passing through your lands, using your wells? Is that indeed murder? Or a justified killing. To make your point, you need to define murder. It always comes down to definitions. Of course we should not be tolerant of Nazis--as, again, I have said, they are acting contrary to THEIR society's morals--that of 20th century Germany and the West--of which they were part. A better question is--for example--was Genghis Kahn immoral? His hordes raped, pillaged, and killed at will. If his ravages indeed led to 40 million deaths, he outdid Hitler and Stalin. But he was acting within his and his own peoples' moral sphere. He cared for his family, and practiced cultural and religious tolerance. I am not saying he was a moral being. But it is worth a discussion.

I suppose this is precisely the point I'm trying to get at. In the American south in the 19th century, the trans Atlantic slavery, treatment of slaves like animals, and the total disregard for human rights of slaves were viewed as moral, societally. As you mentioned, the society of Genghis Kahn believed that what they did was moral. The Ottoman Empire believed, as a society and in government, that military expansion and the killing of anyone who was not Muslim was moral. The Catholic Church believed at some points that killing those who believed in heresies was moral, and that the atrocities of the Crusades were justified. A good majority of Germans, and certainly the German government, believed that the Nazis were good, and that Jews are less than human.

I am intolerant of all of this, and believe it all to be evil. This is because I have an objective standard to measure it against. I believe that no matter what society decides, the government does, or others believe, there is something that is always true, no matter what.

If we don't have this, then we can't say that any of the aforementioned evils were, in fact evil. If morality is determined by society, then murder has been moral at times, and slavery, and sacrifices, and torture, and the depravation of human rights, and countless other activities that I find to be atrociously evil.

I guess my point is - if there is no objective moral standard, then there is no moral truth, and there is no way to differentiate between right and wrong, except by a public poll, which may change by the day.

[CaptainFritz28]

Here's where I wonder - if you say that human nature leads to evil, but also say that morality is determined by society, then morality will always be evil, because the whims of society are guided by human nature. I just don't get how that works.

[Flash2024]

I do see your point. And I don't totally disagree. But I again say if there are dangers in relativism, there too are dangers in absolutism. I grew up in a liberal Episcopal church. I studied religion and trade across the Indian Ocean, including the slave trade to Oman and slavery in the East African coast Islamic society. Hell, my step father was a prominent historian of the Atlantic slave trade. I don't say that as a bona fides thing. But that I really grew up thinking about this. And I don't have an answer. But I wonder, and I am not going to read all 25 pages of this thread--I'm a late comer to it. But you tell me--do the more religious posters tend toward absolutism and the agnostics and atheists, relativists? If so, I would not be surprised. With no real faith of an absolute in my life, I suppose I tend to relativism. While I would expect someone religious would tend the opposite.

Oh, and yes I absolutely see the difference between the Bible and it's teachings (I have actually read and reread both Testaments multiple times--and large portions of the Quran, unlike probably many agnostics). And I celebrate those (few) people who actually practice what it preaches. But so many--so many--who don't. And then Prosperity Theology, maybe the fastest growing segment of Christianity in the US, which places one seemingly back in the days of the Puritans, where wealth accumulation were seen as evidence of God's blessing and eternal bliss to come. Not exactly Christ's belief or moral advocacy.

But again, God bless the real Christians. I'd be happy to party with them.

[Flash2024]

and as far as the Nazis go, and the skinheads. I think we just have to say they evolved (or crawled out from under a rock) from Western culture, which is in essence a JudeoChristian one. Whether we are religious or not, that is where our morality stems from. I have actually heard I cannot be a moral being because I don't follow Christ. I consider that bull, of course, as we (except those who come from elsewhere) all are informed by JudeoChristian morality. If that means I won't go to heaven (as I have also been told), sure, fine. But not a moral being? That is a type of absolutism that I really disagree with.

And since they came from Western culture, they are subject to being judged by Western mores. But not an animist like Genghis Khan, as an example. That is what I meant.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

and as far as the Nazis go, and the skinheads. I think we just have to say they evolved (or crawled out from under a rock) from Western culture, which is in essence a JudeoChristian one. Whether we are religious or not, that is where our morality stems from. I have actually heard I cannot be a moral being because I don't follow Christ. I consider that bull, of course, as we (except those who come from elsewhere) all are informed by JudeoChristian morality. If that means I won't go to heaven (as I have also been told), sure, fine. But not a moral being? That is a type of absolutism that I really disagree with.

And since they came from Western culture, they are subject to being judged by Western mores. But not an animist like Genghis Khan, as an example. That is what I meant.

I really want to pin you down on this point. How are you drawing the lines around "Western" here and why can't it be drawn some other way? It seems like this distinction is doing 100% of the work of determining morality and yet is itself totally arbitrary.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

and as far as the Nazis go, and the skinheads. I think we just have to say they evolved (or crawled out from under a rock) from Western culture, which is in essence a JudeoChristian one. Whether we are religious or not, that is where our morality stems from. I have actually heard I cannot be a moral being because I don't follow Christ. I consider that bull, of course, as we (except those who come from elsewhere) all are informed by JudeoChristian morality. If that means I won't go to heaven (as I have also been told), sure, fine. But not a moral being? That is a type of absolutism that I really disagree with.

And since they came from Western culture, they are subject to being judged by Western mores. But not an animist like Genghis Khan, as an example. That is what I meant.

I really want to pin you down on this point. How are you drawing the lines around "Western" here and why can't it be drawn some other way? It seems like this distinction is doing 100% of the work of determining morality and yet is itself totally arbitrary.

To make clear what I mean, were the Jews and Roma sent to death camps too "oriental" to judge what you're calling an inherently "Western"-based Nazism? Is morality just meaninglessness any time two cultures you view as being distinct clash?

Why is "Western" the standard rather than "European" or "German" or "member of the Nazi party"? How can you be sure you have the right frame?

How much cultural heritage do you have to share with a group before you're allowed to have moral judgements of it? Is a first generation immigrant supposed to shut up about the issues in their new country, but their kids can have views?

[BrianBaru]

This has been an interesting thread. Much of which deserves comment.

I will posit the idea that there are moral absolutes. These absolutes do not limit our choices because we have free will, and we can do what we want. But we can apply a fairly simple standard to know if what we do is moral.

God’s first command to Adam was “Go forth and multiply.” God’s first command to Noah after the flood was “Go forth and multiply.” Even if you don’t believe in God or the Bible, survival of the species is a priority. The purpose of a code of morality is to ensure that we humans survive as a species. And then, to test if something is inherently moral, ie, helps us survive as a species, we ask “If everyone did this, would the species survive?”

Let’s apply this standard to a few human actions:

Murder. Clearly if everyone murdered someone, we’d be down to one human fairly soon. Murder is therefore inherently immoral. Murder is different than killing, as in stopping an invading army, or killing someone raping a woman while her baby is burning in an oven.

Abortion. If everyone aborted their young, we would not bear children, and we would die out after a short time.

Homosexuality. Similar to abortion, the species would die out if everyone only had sex with the same sex.

Those are biggies and obvious examples of immoral behavior – actions that do not continue the species. Other actions need more thought.

Stealing. If everyone stole, there would be no incentive to produce, since the fruit of the labor would be taken. Not unlike Margaret Thatcher’s admonition that “The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” If everyone simply took what they wanted, producers would stop producing, or “Go Gault”

And so on. Yes, a simple standard.

[Flash2024]

So skip Western, Esquire, and insert JudeoChristian...does that help?

[Flash2024]

and about my question--and I am not positing rights or wrongs in this question--consider it philosophical--about if the religious tend toward absolutism and the non toward relativism?

[Flash2024]

Brian, it is as I said before--what is the definition of murder? Am I a murderer if I kill someone from another clan who is my clan's mortal enemy? Is killing in war, murder? If I act to protect someone, in some societies I would still be liable for blood payment to relatives. So how can one say murder is immoral if we don't agree on what murder is?
As far as Maggie Thatcher--in the US, is using my tax money to bail out a mismanaged company stealing? Thoreau spent a night in jail for tax delinquency as a protest against slavery. Was that stealing from the public till? Are you saying you think homosexuality is immoral? Abortion? I think those examples are sorta wishy washy at best, and hopefully you are just positing them.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

So skip Western, Esquire, and insert JudeoChristian...does that help?

No?

I'm surprised an anthropologist indulges an essentialist category like this. What percent Judeo-Christian am I? What percent do I need to be to judge the Nazis? How can you be sure that this particular cultural heritage is the special membrane that allows me to judge others in this ill-defined category? Is a second generation Indian immigrant to Canada inducted into this heritage?

This strikes me as worse than nonsense lol but I suspect maybe I'm just misunderstanding your point.