Morals - Just what are they

Chris OConnor · Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2004 5:16 am Post subject: Morals - Just what are they

This thread is cut from the KOKO thread in Science, Nature...

It turned into a debate on morality, so I put it here.

Mr. P.

"For Every Winner, There Are Dozens Of Losers. Odds Are You're One Of Them"

Edited by: misterpessimistic at: 8/15/04 10:02 am

RickU · Junior Joined: 30 Jun 2004 Posts: 316 Gender:

This started with Rick talking about animal testing, to which deadcity replied:

Quote:
“You do not settle whether an experiment is justified or not by merely showing that it is of some use. The distinction is not between useful and useless experiments, but between barbarous and civilized behavior.”

A fair quote...but the definitions of civilized and barbarous have always been more than a bit ambiguous as they rely on a persons..or nations...perspective.

I liken it to the embryonic stem cell debate. Most Christians, because they feel that life begins at conception, see the practice of using those embryo's for scientific research is barbarous. I feel it's a more civilized viewpoint to recognize that they embryo has no capacity for rational thought...it has no brain and thus it is perfectly reasonable to use them. Our definitions of barbaric behavior are different.

In Vino Veritas

Edited by: misterpessimistic at: 8/15/04 9:25 am

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:38 pm Post subject: Re: Morals - Just what are they?

So it is all subjective, what people will do to each other? Is there no objective definition of barbaric?

If we apply this to what is going on today, can we say, without getting an earful, that terrorist tactics were not barbaric, if seen from their view? The did what they did because of their motives, which justified the actions.

Most view this act as barbaric and cowardly. How can we ever find concensus on issues like this? This is what brings religious people to label atheists as moral-less, more or less.

Are morals subjective too? Or are there devices 'built-in' to our mind, maybe through evolution, that are all-encompassing and ultimately THE moral ground or THE way to live or whatever.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

Edited by: misterpessimistic at: 8/15/04 9:25 am

RickU · Junior Joined: 30 Jun 2004 Posts: 316 Gender:

If you speak of ALL morals, yes. They are subjective. I can't say what's hard coded into our brains. Morals, however, by definition: 2 plural a : moral practices or teachings : modes of conduct b : ETHICS

Must always be subjective. Perhaps we need a new word for what morals are supposed to represent.

As for the terrorist attacks, the majority view is not always the correct one..as we agnostic/atheist's presume to "know". The attack was certainly not cowardly. And from historical examples the attack wasn't even particularly barbaric. It didn't play by the rules of modern warfare though. And why should it? How can a a few ten's of thousand's of people hope to prevail against a large nation?! I would argue that their attacks were poorly planned. They should have hit anything but a purely civilian target (The pentagon was a good choice, along w/ any of the US gov't facilities)

But it's clear that their values/morals0 were atypical of American values/morals. That, in and of itself, does not make them wrong.

What do you think? Should we make a new topic to discuss morals/value's and the things associated w/ it? I don't feel that this topic in particular lends itself to this particular discussion we're having.

In Vino Veritas

Edited by: misterpessimistic at: 8/15/04 9:26 am

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2004 9:36 am Post subject: Re: Morals - Just what are they?

I agree, they are learned traits. I cannot wait to read Pinkers "Blank Slate". I am sorry I missed that discussion here. The is also another book, "The Moral Animal" that Pinker actually reviewed and gave a thumbs up to that I want to read one day!

Pinker reviews "The moral Animal"

Now, this brings me to a conundrum:

Since religion has been such a strong force in early human development, is there any credence in the statement:

Without religion, morals would never have been developed.

Religion was a big help to early humans in explaining things and in learning how to interact without killing each other, no? As a control tool, it worked in bringing about a somewhat peaceful outlook and means of community cohesion.

Or were there hard wired (genetic) or naturally selected (non-genetic) precursors to morality and cooperation that led to religion?

Could an atheistic or naturalistic approach to morality actually be a more pure form of morality? Was religion an unnecessary step in an otherwise inevitable progression?

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

deadcity12 · Almost a regular Joined: 19 Jul 2004 Posts: 35 Gender:

Quote:
Since religion has been such a strong force in early human development, is there any credence in the statement:

I think that religion, in the sense that you mean it, is not a force in early HUMAN development---but rather a strong force early in our civilization's development. The genesis of our civilization occured only about 10,000 years ago---that's relatively recent given the age of our species! This might seem a trivial point, but I think it might be helpful to keep in mind as we tackle the issue at hand.

Quote:
Without religion, morals would never have been developed

morality in our culture (and largely, our world) has quite intimate ties to the major religious traditions. so many ties, in fact, that both believers and non-believers alike tend to hold many of the same ideas about what is "moral" behavior. the question is: which came first the chicken (religion), or the egg(morality)? It might be hard to determine unless we start to define our terms.

Moral: 1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL <a moral certainty>
3 : having the effects of such on the mind, confidence, or will <a moral victory> <moral support>
- mor·al·ly /-&-lE/ adverb
synonyms MORAL, ETHICAL, VIRTUOUS, RIGHTEOUS, NOBLE mean conforming to a standard of what is right and good. MORAL implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong <the basic moral values of a community>. ETHICAL may suggest the involvement of more difficult or subtle questions of rightness, fairness, or equity <committed to the highest ethical principles>. VIRTUOUS implies the possession or manifestation of moral excellence in character <not a religious person, but virtuous nevertheless>. RIGHTEOUS stresses guiltlessness or blamelessness and often suggests the sanctimonious <wished to be righteous before God and the world>. NOBLE implies moral eminence and freedom from anything petty, mean, or dubious in conduct and character <had the noblest of reasons for seeking office>.

Quote:
Religion was a big help to early humans in explaining things and in learning how to interact without killing each other, no? As a control tool, it worked in bringing about a somewhat peaceful outlook and means of community cohesion.

Religion does/did help to explain things and reconcile the human psyche to the brutality of existence. Religion also seems to offer up justifications for us killing each other too. As for social cohesion---yes, for those in your community(religion)---perhaps too much, so much so that it inspires distain for those who do not subscribe to your belief system. When you say religion, I assume you mean the major religious traditions of today.

Quote:
Or were there hard wired (genetic) or naturally selected (non-genetic) precursors to morality and cooperation that led to religion?

Of course, when I earlier rephrased this as "the chicken or the egg?" I was being far too simplistic. It's usually not a question of "either/or", but rather an interplay of conspiring elements. Religions come and go---but the ones that have stuck and have grown seem to have a great deal in common. Perhaps this has something to do with a basic human essence...
There are most certainly precursors to cooperation though---we homo sapiens, and all of our nearest relatives, are extremely social animals. We must cooperate to survive.

Quote:
Could an atheistic or naturalistic approach to morality actually be a more pure form of morality? Was religion an unnecessary step in an otherwise inevitable progression?

Progression? Towards what? Morality must/will change with time. Morality must/will vary between geographic regions, cultures, etc.

Here are some of my ideas for what we should consider moral:
a) that which will perpetuate the species
b) that which promotes the greater good--maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain for all parties involved in the long run

note: please forgive the disjointed structure of my posts and ideas---i do this at work( i wonder if this is immoral) and am constanly interrupted and rushed..

Dissident Heart

Below is some of the text prepared by the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1994 titled, "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic".

I think it would be a very useful resource in making sense of the complex intersections between ethics, morality and religion. Key, as I see it, is the effort to find common grounds and shared objectives across religious and ideological traditions. This will, I hope, portray the real complexity and diversity arising from the world of religion, as well as a growing solidarity towards a more just and sane humanity.

Quote:
Our world is experiencing a fundamental crisis: A crisis in global economy, global ecology, and global politics. The lack of a grand vision, the tangle of unresolved problems, political paralysis, mediocre political leadership with little insight or foresight, and in general too little sense for the commonweal are seen everywhere: Too many old answers to new challenges.

Time and again we see leaders and members of religions incite aggression, fanaticism, hate, and xenophobia - even inspire and legitimize violent and bloody conflicts. Religion often is misused for purely power-political goals, including war. We are filled with disgust.

We are persons who have committed ourselves to the precepts and practices of the world's religions. We confirm that there is already a consensus among the religions which can be the basis for a global ethic - a minimal fundamental consensus concerning binding values, irrevocable standards, and fundamental moral attitudes.

By a global ethic we do not mean a global ideology or a single unified religion beyond all existing religions, and certainly not the domination of one religion over all others. By a global ethic we mean a fundamental consensus on binding values, irrevocable standards, and personal attitudes. Without such a fundamental consensus on an ethic, sooner or later every community will be threatened by chaos or dictatorship, and individuals will despair.

Dissident Heart · Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2004 10:26 pm Post subject: Nietzsche

Nietzsche is a voice from 19th Century European Philosophy,famous for his statement "God is Dead", as well as his radically critical and fearless examination of Morality.

For Nietzsche, Morality was not a universal, absolute component of the human psyche, mind, soul...rather, it was a diverse mixture of multiple drives struggling for domination, exploitation, appropriation, and self-overcoming.

The term he used to encapsulate and direct this process, "Will to Power", was a combination of forces enfusing the entirety of individual, communal, species, plantary, and cosmic existence.

He identified two types of moralities, often found within a single person and embodied by an entire people: Master Morality and Slave Morality....again, understanding the fluid, dynamic, turbulent flow of forces that make up the Will to Power beneath, between, and within all of this.

Master Morality referred to those persons able to love and affirm themselves...actively creating and transforming their lives and the world around them guided by a passion to cultivate and a virtue to build. Courageous free spirits, experimental, bold, inventive and able to withstand a table of laws of their own choosing, demanding from themsleves excruciating discipline and perpetual self-overcoming.

Slave Morality referred to those persons unable to love themselves, and submerged in a resentiful self-pity that can only devalue and reject that which exposes their weakness of will and impotency of action. Self-loathing, self-hating, seeking revenge and a chance to punish those who remind them of their lack of freedom...willing to destroy eveything and everyone because of their inability to live the life they desire.

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 8:45 am Post subject: Re: Nietzsche

Quote:
Nietzsche is a voice from 19th Century European Philosophy,famous for his statement "God is Dead", as well as his radically critical and fearless examination of Morality.

I have never read Nietzsche, but have read what others have said about him somewhat. I have a book I hope to start soon called "What is Called Thinking" by Heidegger...it is basically a compilation of his lectures. He uses Nietzsche a lot in his lectures, from what I have seen skimming the book.

Funny, in the current discussion book by Harris, the next Chapter (10) references Nietzsche's "Master/ Slave" idea.

Ultimately, getting back to the topic, this info you present about Nietzsche tells me that morality is absolutely a human endeavor and not something granted by a god. And its implementation is subjected to the abilities (biological and philosophical, and the transcendence of both) of the individual (which extends to the group) to accept and master the tenets of said system.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

deadcity12 · Almost a regular Joined: 19 Jul 2004 Posts: 35 Gender:

Has anyone read this? Seems like it could be helpful to this discussion...

The Evolutionary Origins of Morality
Leonard D. Katz (Editor)

Editorial Reviews
Noam Chomsky
These studies and reflections on the evolution of psychological traits and the capacities for moral judgment-distinct if related topics-are a welcome contribution. Thoughtful and informative, they provide a good basis for appreciating what has been achieved, and what the prospects might be, in a domain of inquiry that is of fundamental importance for understanding of our essential nature

Marc Hauser
What would happen at a fictional dinner with the likes of Charles Darwin, Adam Smith, David Hume, and Friedrich Nietzsche debating and revising their views in the light of today's science? Hard to say, perhaps, but one might well imagine that it would be great fun to listen in. Forget fiction. Pick up Evolutionary Origins of Morality and find out how moral psychology is being picked apart by evolutionists. The concise essays and critical exchanges are great fun-and a feast for the mind.

Book Description
Four principal papers and a total of 43 peer commentaries on the evolutionary origins of morality. To what extent is human morality the outcome of a continuous development from motives, emotions and social behaviour found in nonhuman animals? Jerome Kagan, Hans Kummer, Peter Railton and others discuss the first principal paper by primatologists Jessica Flack and Frans de Waal. The second paper, by cultural anthropologist Christopher Boehm, synthesizes social science and biological evidence to support his theory of how our hominid ancestors became moral. In the third paper philosopher Elliott Sober and evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson argue that an evolutionary understanding of human nature allows sacrifice for others and ultimate desires for another's good. Finally Brian Skyrms argues that game theory based on adaptive dynamics must join the social scientist’s use of rational choice and classical game theory to explain cooperation.


	HOME	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT