Morality And Morals

[GeorgeW]

I'm not suggesting that there need be some universal moral code somewhere that people adhere to. But we do -- we have -- progressed in our awareness, recognition, and respect of subjecthood/subjectivity. To me this is the genesis of moral thought. In some cultures, what we see as misogyny or murder is not necessarily viewed in those terms. Strictly speaking within the framework of their moral system it is not immoral.

 

MIke,

 

I think there is a universal moral code although the specifics vary from culture to culture. To my knowledge, no society considers killing, lying, stealing, incest, etc. as amoral acts. All societies have violations of these and some have more of them than others, but none see killing, as an example, as the moral equivalent of riding a bicycle. In fact, killing is sometimes the result of enforcing a moral code (capital punishment).

 

And yes, according to Steven Pinker in The Better Angels of Our Nature (which I am in the middle of now), we are making progress as a species on the violence front. We are living in the most peaceful period of human history in terms of war and domestic violence. And, this is not an aberration; there has been a historical trend toward less violence.

 

George

[glintofpewter]

And, this is not an aberration; there has been a historical trend toward less violence.

I read recently that to have a stable society the government must have a monopoly on violence as enforcement. I don't disagree that we are evolving and that learning to play well in the sand is the direction we are going but our ideas are way ahead of our instincts and self-control. Pull back government monopoly globally or nationally and we would fall back a level or two.

[GeorgeW]

I read recently that to have a stable society the government must have a monopoly on violence as enforcement. I don't disagree that we are evolving and that learning to play well in the sand is the direction we are going but our ideas are way ahead of our instincts and self-control. Pull back government monopoly globally or nationally and we would fall back a level or two.

 

I agree. And, the role that government has played in controlling violence is a factor that Pinker says has contributed to the historical trend toward less violence.

 

George

[minsocal]

I read recently that to have a stable society the government must have a monopoly on violence as enforcement. I don't disagree that we are evolving and that learning to play well in the sand is the direction we are going but our ideas are way ahead of our instincts and self-control. Pull back government monopoly globally or nationally and we would fall back a level or two.

 

Like many ideas this seems to be a "footnote to Plato". In his last work, the Laws, Plato advocates for the regulation of poetic works and the punishment of athieism with death (imagine that). It seems to me that this is quite a distance from modern liberal democracy.

[Yvonne]

Like many ideas this seems to be a "footnote to Plato". In his last work, the Laws, Plato advocates for the regulation of poetic works and the punishment of athieism with death (imagine that). It seems to me that this is quite a distance from modern liberal democracy.

 

Are you saying a stable government, with the ability to enact and enforce laws is a threat to modern liberal democracy? I'm no expert (definitely, NOT an expert) but it seems to me that in places where the reigning government changes hands regularly, in dictatorships, or in places of near-anarchy, things that most of us on the forum would consider immoral, unethical, or even evil happen regularly.

[Mike]

MIke,

 

I think there is a universal moral code although the specifics vary from culture to culture. To my knowledge, no society considers killing, lying, stealing, incest, etc. as amoral acts. All societies have violations of these and some have more of them than others, but none see killing, as an example, as the moral equivalent of riding a bicycle. In fact, killing is sometimes the result of enforcing a moral code (capital punishment).

 

And yes, according to Steven Pinker in The Better Angels of Our Nature (which I am in the middle of now), we are making progress as a species on the violence front. We are living in the most peaceful period of human history in terms of war and domestic violence. And, this is not an aberration; there has been a historical trend toward less violence.

 

George

 

George,

 

It is my sense that any developed culture will have developed some similar invariances in their moral systems, so I do agree with you there. But still it is true that there can be radical divergences here and there. What we would see clearly as instances of rape or murder can be considered morally justifiable in other cultures. Consider 'honor killings' as one example. But though some may consider that acceptable, and though within the framework of their understanding of reality it is justifiable, I still see honor killings as immoral, and I don't have any hesitation making a moral judgment call like that. I suppose that within my present understanding I would simply (or not so simply) see morality as a mirror image of our capacity to find meaning in life and other people. Moral reflection is the capacity to look upon another being as a subject with inherent meaning and existence. To me this capacity can extend beyond the human to the animal, insect, and even so-called inanimate world. I also think this capacity, though structured by natural selection, is not reducible to a mere materialistic description of behavior.

 

Peace,

Mike

[NORM]

First, I am wondering how this ties to your statement in the previous post, that

 

"Religion and philosophy are human inventions that give meaning to words like morality, justice, evil and good. These constructs can either be used as a weapon or a force for good."

 

The final occurrence of "good" here seems to be presupposed as more/other than a construct.

 

I'm not sure I know what you mean by your question. Taken in the full context, everything I said is consistent with my suggestion that there is no universal moral code imbued by a supernatural creator.

 

 

 

Secondly, what do you take to be the implications that what we often take to be moral universals are, in fact, not?

 

None, other than that there is no imperative from high regarding morality. And consequently; the ruling shamans / priests have no power over the people. This understanding has helped humanity struggle out from under the thumb of a clergy-elite and allowed us to evolve as a society and learn from experience rather than bow to tradition.

 

 

Are misogyny and murder therefore acceptable? Or is there simply no such thing as morality? Whence, then, indignation at the biblical accounts of genocide, etc?

 

Often, those who suggest that there is no supernatural authority for moral absolutes are mistakenly accused of being for anarchy. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, using the example you provide above, where once a clergy / shaman-elite allowed misogyny and murder of "heretics," now an informed and enlightened public can determine that misogyny is wrong and religious freedom ought to be embraced.

 

I'm not suggesting that there need be some universal moral code somewhere that people adhere to.

 

Maybe you aren't, but the OP I was responding to does.

 

But we do -- we have -- progressed in our awareness, recognition, and respect of subjecthood/subjectivity. To me this is the genesis of moral thought. In some cultures, what we see as misogyny or murder is not necessarily viewed in those terms. Strictly speaking within the framework of their moral system it is not immoral.

 

Right. I agree.

 

However, does that negate our observation? Perhaps we see, say, misogyny as such because we have a genuinely richer vantage point. That is, we see women as genuine subjects -- persons, beings with intrinsic value. Perhaps their system has overlooked a lot of meaning. Without that affirmation, a woman (or any other person or being) becomes an object. When a person is an "object", less-than-human, or whatever, then morally there is no problem treating them as such. The Nazis justified themselves in this way. We can therefore see that morality is linked to our ontology. What we take something or someone to be directly influences the meaning they have for us and how we relate to them in the moral dimension of our thought. Our morals can be informed by a poor ontology -- by poor reasons, by untruths. Our moral awareness grows richer the less we objectify and demean others and the more we accept good ideas about the nature of reality (and perhaps these coincide).

 

Exactly. I would agree. However, if the moral absolutes are coming from a supernatural being who stands in judgement of all humanity, than how can we oppose the shaman / clergyman who is enforcing these moral mandates?

 

NORM

[NORM]

Norm,

 

I lived in the Middle East for eleven years and had a completely different experience.

 

George

 

Were you living on a military base or part of a "corporate community?"

 

When I travel, I stay in the homes of native citizens and live, work and play as they would. I stay long enough to learn the lingua-franca of the locals. It's amazing how much different your experience of another culture can be outside of the corporate community or military base.

 

I have a friend whose father worked for a major US corporation in Japan, and they lived in the corporate neighborhood (many US companies will provide schools, churches and little suburban-like neighborhoods for their executives working overseas). It's amazing how different our comparisons are of the culture. Ditto the US bases. My cousin spent 11 years (that's why I think you lived on a military base) in Germany on an Army base, yet speaks very little German. I know more German than she!

 

Nevertheless, my experience is that moral standards can be starkly different than ours in other countries. It was far more pronounced in places like Somalia, Botswana, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Haiti.

 

And, to be sure, there are many communities in all of these countries that very much share our moral standards. They tend to be in the wealthier, more urbanized areas, though.

 

NORM

[GeorgeW]

Were you living on a military base or part of a "corporate community?" [. . .]

 

Nevertheless, my experience is that moral standards can be starkly different than ours in other countries. It was far more pronounced in places like Somalia, Botswana, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Haiti.

NORM

 

It is true that many Americans who live outside the U.S. live in very isolated communities. However, I am interested in other cultures and made an effort to experience the culture and interact with local people.

 

I lived two years 'on the economy' and nine years in a "corporate community," but one comprised of many non-Westerners as well as Westerners. I lived in my own home, but I was in the homes of local people often and worked very closely with local people and considered a number as friends. I lived in Saudi Arabia and have spent a lot of time in Egypt, several months in Yemen and visited a number of other Middle Eastern and South Asian countries. I read and write Arabic and speak enough to get along.

 

I do not claim that their values mirror ours. But, at the core, the similarities far outweigh the differences.

 

George

[GeorgeW]

It is my sense that any developed culture will have developed some similar invariances in their moral systems, so I do agree with you there. But still it is true that there can be radical divergences here and there. What we would see clearly as instances of rape or murder can be considered morally justifiable in other cultures. Consider 'honor killings' as one example.

Mike,

 

Yes, of course, rape and murder occur everywhere and some more than others. But, these are almost universally violations of moral codes, otherwise we would not describe them as 'rape' and 'murder.'

 

Honor killings are, I think, part of a moral code in which a person’s honor is impeached and the remedy is violence. Most of us no longer consider that remedy acceptable, but would agree that harm has been done and that this violates a basic moral principle.

 

George

[NORM]

.

 

I lived two years 'on the economy' and nine years in a "corporate community," but one comprised of many non-Westerners as well as Westerners.

 

Ah, I thought so. During my travels, I had encounters with many people in these corporate and military communities. They were almost universally hated by the locals.

 

Sorry.

 

I don't know how old you are, but you may recall a book that came out in the 60s (? I think) called the Hitchiker's Guide to the Planet (not to be confused with the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Adams). The book explained how to travel the world with nothing more than the clothes on your back. I did this for several years and made it to 5 continents and over 60 countries.

 

As a consequence of hitching rides from peasants, flying with drug-running pilots, crewing on freighters and living in mud huts, I met people most of us would describe as "local color" when on the road. Many of these off the map places had very different ideas on morals, ethics and life in general than what you would see on a guided tour - or even at lunch with the locals at the PX.

 

And since the poor in most of these countries represent the majority of the population, I feel I was able to put my finger on the pulse of the nations I visited. The biggest difficulty I had was struggling through the language. A peasant in Seville does NOT speak Castilian Spanish!

 

 

 

I do not claim that their values mirror ours. But, at the core, the similarities far outweigh the differences.

 

This was the opposite of my experience.

 

Perhaps we are discussing more the difference between the upper classes and the rest of the world.

 

NORM

[GeorgeW]

Ah, I thought so. During my travels, I had encounters with many people in these corporate and military communities. They were almost universally hated by the locals.

 

Sorry.

 

There is nothing to be sorry for, I had a wonderful and interesting experience and was not "hated by the locals." I dealt with people from all social classes, not just "the elites."

 

In order to compare moral values, one needs to get below the superficial surface of religious practices, language, customs, etc. and examine basic values.

 

George

[minsocal]

It seems to me that:

 

1. There is a difference between a principle, its interpretation, and its application. The "law of reciprocity" is a basic example. Sometimes it is expressed as "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." At other times it is expressed as "reciprocal altruism". Nonetheless, the principle is "reciprocity".

 

2. In some societies, a great deal reciprocity is left in the hands of the individual. In other societies, negative reciprocity or punishment for doing harm to another individual is laregely controlled by the state.

 

3. There is a substantive difference between the concepts of justice and morality. They should not be conflated.

 

4. Revenge and justice remain conflated, even in our own society.

 

Myron

[GeorgeW]

It seems to me that:

 

1. There is a difference between a principle, its interpretation, and its application. The "law of reciprocity" is a basic example. Sometimes it is expressed as "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." At other times it is expressed as "reciprocal altruism". Nonetheless, the principle is "reciprocity".

 

2. In some societies, a great deal reciprocity is left in the hands of the individual. In other societies, negative reciprocity or punishment for doing harm to another individual is laregely controlled by the state.

 

3. There is a substantive difference between the concepts of justice and morality. They should not be conflated.

 

4. Revenge and justice remain conflated, even in our own society.

 

 

Myron, I agree, we should not conflate justice and morality. This is an important point.

 

FWIW, in his book, Michael Gazzinga (a neuroscientist) lists the modules that he proposes comprise our moral intuition: (1) Reciprocity, (2) Suffering,; (3) Hierarchy; (4) In Group/out Group Coalition; and (5) Purity. In his model, all of our moral behaviors can be related back to one of these. (Note that reciprocity is listed first).

 

George

[Nick the Nevermet]

George,

 

I've been trying to figure out a good way to ask something. This is the best I've got.

 

How does your interest in neuroscience and the arguments based on it avoid the naturalistic fallacy?

 

The naturalistic fallacy is when "a philosopher attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term "good" in terms of one or more natural properties (such as "pleasant", "more evolved", "desired", etc.)" (quote from the wikipedia page). I'm not a philosopher, and I may be mixing up the naturalistic fallacy, appeal to nature, and the is-ought problem. However, the basic point remains: for some worldviews, it is problematic to claim, "If humanity is hardwired to accept X as moral, then X is moral."

 

I'm pretty sure that I've just offered a caricature of your position, but I'm not 100% sure where I went wrong.

[GeorgeW]

How does your interest in neuroscience and the arguments based on it avoid the naturalistic fallacy?

 

The naturalistic fallacy is when "a philosopher attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term "good" in terms of one or more natural properties (such as "pleasant", "more evolved", "desired", etc.)" (quote from the wikipedia page). I'm not a philosopher, and I may be mixing up the naturalistic fallacy, appeal to nature, and the is-ought problem. However, the basic point remains: for some worldviews, it is problematic to claim, "If humanity is hardwired to accept X as moral, then X is moral."

 

These guys are not addressing whether any particualr behavior is right and wrong, they are describing the mental mechanism by which we humans come to judge behaviors as right and wrong.

 

As scientists they would be neutral, as an example, on incest, but try to understand its evolutionary basis. As humans, they would certainly find it abhorent (unless, of course, they had a really cute sister or brother).

 

George

[Nick the Nevermet]

In that case, I think I misread your posts, or at least their subtext. As I read your posts, you seemed to have been making a moral (rather than empirical) argument that there really are some universal moral ideals, and this is good, and they are embedded in our biology.

[GeorgeW]

In that case, I think I misread your posts, or at least their subtext. As I read your posts, you seemed to have been making a moral (rather than empirical) argument that there really are some universal moral ideals, and this is good, and they are embedded in our biology.

 

Sorry for the confusion. I do think there are moral rights and wrongs, but that is a different and philosophical issue.

 

George

[Spiker439]

FWIW, in his book, Michael Gazzinga (a neuroscientist) lists the modules that he proposes comprise our moral intuition: (1) Reciprocity, (2) Suffering,; (3) Hierarchy; (4) In Group/out Group Coalition; and (5) Purity. In his model, all of our moral behaviors can be related back to one of these. (Note that reciprocity is listed first).

 

George

 

I believe that, from a philosophical standpoint, many of the moral theories which have been offered through the ages are attempts to vindicate our varied and often contradicting intuitions about what is right and wrong. I have not read the Gazzinga offering you mention, though as a reasonably well-informed neuropsychologist I can tell you that one can easily support Gazzinga's list with simple psychoanalytic experiments, such as the prisoner's dilemma, the ultimatum game, etc., without requiring recourse to neural substrates (though such a path remains valid and perhaps useful). I would probably include "fairness" as category 6, though again I'd need to read the book to better understand his distinctions.

 

Interestingly, the philosophical theories which attempt to give us a basis for the moral status (rightness/wrongness) of acts are arguably all based on one or more of these moral intuitions. For instance, Rawls' and Hobbes' social contract theories would conform to (1) our intuition of reciprocity (and Hobbes' also to (3) hierarchy), utilitarian theories conform to our intuitions on (3) suffering, Kant's deontological theory arguably corresponds to purity (5), and perhaps (and this is much looser) Divine command theory would correspond to in group/out group coalition (4), although I believe that in-group out-group coalition is much more applicable in applied ethics, for instance, in arguments about global justice or animal rights.

 

Having traveled extensively myself (for a young fellow, anyway) I would say that my own experiences around the world have shown that, while people experience different conflicts between these intuitions, according to social status, religion, culture, etc., the basic intuitions are generally equivalent in all cultures. This explains culturally relative instances of moral rightness/wrongness such as honour killing as conflicts between moral intuitions - reciprocity vs suffering, roughly, in this case: Depending on which intuition is the stronger in a particular society, a person will either support or deny the moral status of this act, while retaining the underlying and perhaps universal intuitions. This account seems to accommodate both nature and nurture.

 

Thoughts?

 

Chris

[themoreilearnthelessiknow]

What I find interesting about this conversation is that when we compare different cultures/etc we often focus on morals as "don't do this" rules like "though shall not kill" etc. I prefer to apply Jesus' principal of "loving God and loving man" when comparing different cultures. When I do, I see so much more similarity then difference.

[minsocal]

Chris,

 

As far as social contract theory goes, could you compare and contrast Hobbes with Spinza for us? I ask because Spinoza is considered closer to progressive thought than Hobbes.

 

Myron

[Spiker439]

Chris,

 

As far as social contract theory goes, could you compare and contrast Hobbes with Spinza for us? I ask because Spinoza is considered closer to progressive thought than Hobbes.

 

Myron

 

Having briefly studied Hobbes' Leviathan, and given Spinoza's political philosophy a cursory look, I can contrast to the best of my ability

Hobbes believed in man's status as a selfish but rational being. He proposed three laws of nature which were essentially intended as rules which any rational being would accept in the interest of preserving their own life and advancing their own desires. I am paraphrasing here: 1) Seek peace unless you are forced to defend yourself 2) Give up your right to decide what is necessary for your self-preservation on condition others do the same, and 3) Keep all of your agreements on condition others do the same. Together, these laws naturally led to Hobbes' position that the state must be unified and immensely powerful - a Leviathan - in order to keep us from reneging on our contracts (i.e. in order to enforce the conditions that "others do the same", in laws 2 and 3). This paints a picture of the human being as fundamentally selfish and self-interested. Famously Hobbes argued that without these laws in place and a Leviathan state with absolute power to enforce social contract, man's life would be "Nasty, brutish and short". Morality, then, for Hobbes, is both narrowly politically construed (which is to say that he is chiefly concerned with social contract rather than other more common moral questions, i.e. should I have an abortion, etc.), as well as motivated by our own self-interest.

Spinoza, as I remember, is sometimes construed as a Hobbesian in many senses. He certainly supported social contract theory, as Hobbes did, and he also thought that man in his natural state was a self serving and brutish entity. Spinoza held the strong view that all human behaviour is entirely explicable through examination of the laws of nature (the laws of God or Nature, he probably would have put it). Since men's behaviour includes the engagement in social contract theory and the practice of ethics or moral thought/action, his view entails that morality is therefore purely naturalistic (though, since God just is nature for Spinoza, the ultimate nature of nature (ha) is divine). As I am more familiar with Spinoza's metaphysics, I find it difficult to reconcile his ontological and views with his support for social contract theory. The idea that all men who are rational ought to engage in social contract seems at odds with his view that most men are not in fact rational, for instance. At any rate, what sets Spinoza apart from Hobbes, I would argue, is that Hobbes was not quite so strict a naturalist as Spinoza. Consider Hobbes' 2nd law of nature, for example: To be able to give up one's right implies an entitlement to such a right, which is a normative claim about the nature of this right. Spinoza denied this position, in favour of a complete naturalization of social contract theory.

So, to finally answer your question (again, only to the best of my ability), Spinoza and Hobbes seem to have been of similar minds with respect to morality. But while Hobbes was a forward thinker for his time, Spinoza took it one step further. Spinoza's complete naturalization of morality (well, of everything really) remains controversial even in modern times, as does his portrayal of God as nothing more or less than the natural state of the world. I would certainly agree on his latter assertion, and while I don't like to agree on the former, I have yet to encounter or formulate any great argument for the normativity of morality; though I'm always looking (wouldn't it be nice!).

Please forgive the use of "man" throughout; a term best replaced by "human". Hope this was somewhat helpful.

 

Chris

[minsocal]

Chris,

 

Thank you for your input. In some Progressive Christian circles, Hobbes does not fair very well. The sticking point is in his insistance that so long as the state keeps one safe from a violent death, one is obligated to follow the dictate of state and give up one's right to act on one's own decisions in all cases other than self defense when faced with a clear and present danger. In other words, the state rules on all matters so long as it can keep the peace. In Leviathan, Hobbes attempts to discredit any religious view that may lead to civil strife.

 

A number of people who have been around this board for some time will see where this is going. Spinoza, on the other hand, greatly admired the teachings of Jesus, and favored a limited constitutional state that encourages freedom of expression and religious toleration.

 

Myron

[Spiker439]

Spinoza, on the other hand, greatly admired the teachings of Jesus, and favored a limited constitutional state that encourages freedom of expression and religious toleration.

 

Maybe, but he also thought that the sovereign state had a right to put down any religion within its political bounds, if the need arose. So, while he did support religious tolerance, it was only insofar as religion remained useful, or at least not detrimental, to the state's hold on the populus. This is because, first and foremost, Spinoza was concerned with the free thinking as a way to make the state viable; the fact that this also applies to religious thought is secondary. In the end, he did advocate that the state not interfere if at all possible, for many practical reasons (and this particular notion actually has its roots in ancient Eastern philosophy, specifically in the writings of Confucius). So, he was certainly more liberal than Hobbes, but he would also have held that the sovereign state ought to react against any religious activity that threatened civil order or liberty.

 

But, I agree that Spinoza's views are certainly more amenable to the PC viewpoint, at least compared to Hobbes'. Could you name some other philosophers whose positions are readily amenable to the PC standpoint? I can think of some whose writings probably support PC, but I'm interested to see what you have to say. Hmmm... perhaps this is a bit too far off topic, on second thought.