Forum

Morality was invented by us! The elements of moral philosophy gives a brief snapshot into this!

Indeedy. Morality is a social construct which varies according to location and time. As different societies have diferent value and belief systems, conflicting morals emerge, so what is seen as 'normal' and 'acceptable' by some societies is seen as immoral by others. Take the differing laws towards age of consent in different countries as an example...

If morality is a social construct, it must have been developed like all tools; as a construction towards the improvement or advancement of our lives in some way. It can be seen as an inherent contradiction that morals are one of the greatest causes for opposition and consequently for damage to the cohesion of a successful society. Retrospectively however, if morals are not a social construct, by what authority and method are they defined or is it possible that it is in fact beneficial for us to be in a Hobbsian style 'war of morals'? Thoughts?

I think the 10 commandments from the Bible are a great example. Many people take those quite literally word for word as "God's Law" I prefer to think of them as guidelines for society to function in a co-herent way. You know, dont kill anyone, dont steal someone else's wife etc etc.

It is all about how a society chooses what is right and what is wrong. and that does change over time. Although I think the basics like "murder is wrong" will always be wrong.

Right! (Stretches typing fingers)

Craiggauld - so all changes in moral behaviour are as a result of advancement within society? Its a bit of a functionalist / march of progress viewpoint - so are you areguing that modern moral viewpoints are a change for the better form old ways of thinking? How do you see the rise of religious fundamentalism ( Christian as well as Islamic) and the various 'moral panics' (such as attitudes towards paeodophillia / the incident where the paediatrician was attacked in South Wales) fitting in with this viewpoint? Don't know if you saw it a few night ago on BBC4, but there was a great programme on the Pendle Witch trials, that had quite a few current cross references.

T4Texas - getting into the realms of psychology now. Are we born knowing murder is wrong, or is it a learned behaviour? Is it something that unites mankind, as in the vast majority of societies the fact that 'murder is wrong' is a shared value. People make many choices to be 'deviant' from society; some in a small way, some in a major way. To turn it on its head, is the desire to murder a learned behaviour or the desire not to murder a learned behaviour?

I would say murder is both learned and innate from birth. The desire to not murder that is. I think Theoretically if someone was to grow up their whole lives having never been told murder is wrong or influenced one way or the other, they would still know for themselves taking someone else's life for no good reason is completely wrong.

Even "undiscovered" tribes in the Brazilian rainforest with no contact to outside society or any modern technology know murder is wrong.

T4Texas- I'd be interested in hearing who you believe is in charge of deciding what 'ultimate morals' like these commandments. It is proven that the commandments were written by Man, not God; at least directly. Furthermore, is murder wrong? Imagine a simulation in which you can travel back in time and you have the chance to shoot dead a terrorist who will otherwise go on to blow up a school bus in which are a large group of children; in the name of religion or politics say. Would you take the shot?

lottaCharlotte- That is my view, more specifically that moral viewpoints are not only an ever changing set of theories, but that they will forever be irreconcilable with society as a whole, as different circumstances require different actions in aid of either survival or in luckier evironments such as our own, simply economic advantage.
I hadn't been planning on giving my own views straight away as it is just as fun arguing with someone who you agree with as someone you oppose but as you asked . My opinions on religious ideals are mixed. Whilst i find the idea of theistic belief to be irrational, i concede that it can have benefits socially and personally through moral influence. Survival in MEDC's such as our own is largely enxxxxxx by laws which support the kind of morals mentioned by T4Texas, however, LEDC's such as Sudan do not enjoy this support, they are xxxxxx into a situation closer to that Hobbs describes and morals here are necessarily different as people sculpt their views in the best way to survive. If you had no food in a country like this, would you not steal bread from a rich man?
The paediatrician incident was not the result of bad morals as much as it was of stupid people firstly getting their facts wrong and secondly rejecting their society's agreed moral process (police) and adopted moral 'war'. I would argue however that incidents like this can sometimes be beneficial, for example the current uprising against the Libyan dictatorship. Without the freedom to rebel from morals, how can we be free to have them?

T4Texas- Do we know murder is wrong innately, or do we refrain from murder because of fear of repersussions? It is argued that humans key instinct in life is for survival, and having a peace pact in regards to murder can be seen as no more than a very obvious basic pact to avoid being murdered ourselves.

People who are highly religious would say that God (whatever deity you choose to believe in) wrote or influenced the 10 commandments.

But, I believe that as you said humans wrote the 10 commandments and passed it off as "God's word" (to give it more believability) but, as I mentioned before I think they are just a society's general rules to be able to function smoothly. Dont steal,cheat,murder etc.... all very basic concepts to a "good life" things that everyone "knows" but feels they must obey or try to obey if they are written down as Godly Commandments.

As for murder, you asked if I would kill a terrorist if I knew he was going to blow up a bus of children in the future. If I KNEW that for fact, it would be justifiable killing would it not? Take the life of one clearly bad person to save many innocent lives. I would have no issues with that at all.

As for people not murdering other people purely as a survival instinct, I dont buy that one. Let me give you a theoretical question.

Say you could murder someone you really dont like and there would be NO CHANCE that you would ever get caught. Would you do it? My guess is no..... because human nature just instintively tells you murder is wrong. we get that feeling from childhood until death.

Quite a few points to cover.....so lets take them one by one....

1. T4Texas. Yes, the majority of people have taken the view that muder is wrong as it does seem to be one of the common linkages between societies. But there are also lots of examples where that moral structure doesn't exist. Cannibalism, human sacrifices and even the attitudes of some modern urban gangs have a different viewpoint over the acceptability of taking someone elses life. Some people have the viewpoint that the death penalty is just another form of murder. Just because some has wronged society by the morals and norms of that society is it justified to take their life?

2. Both of you: Religion. The often misquoted 'opium of the masses'. I find any type of religion hard to reconcile in my own personal belief system as I am miss logical /analytical ( BTW my mum is a Church of England minister.) Is the sole purpose of religion to regulate society? The morals of the church (not falling into the trap of using the western viewpoint as the norm or the 'correct' way, btw) have been fluid over time - if attitudes have no changed, the development of medicine would not have happened. Buddhism adopts a different system of reinforcing social control - a list of 'try to' 's in the 8 fold path rather than a list of 'do not' 's that you find in abrahamic religions. In a modern secular society can religion have any legitimate influence?

3. Craiggauld - don't confuse the emergence of governance in developing countries as a sign of a different attitudes towards morals. Emergence of strong government is a development indicator. Just because a country doesn't have the same level of legislation and governmental control does not mean the desire to have those systems is not there. If you look at HDI, many countries that are clustering about 0.7 that are on the verge of being MEDCs are the ones that have experienced major politcal changes in the last 20 or so years. Look at South America as your examples rather than Africa. Brazil and Mexico are now almost MEDCs by a lot of indicators ( yes I know development is still uneven but then again look at the USA) and the emergence of strong governemnt is almost the final stage of the process. But you could also argue that South America will become increasingly liberal with the emergence of strong government as the hold of the catholic church diminishes...

4. Deviance. I think we need to start looking at the role of deviant behaviour in the role of changing moral structures. Its a similar process to how ideas and thought go from being extreme to mainstream...

BTW its such a contrast reading serious academic debate whilst having a cock pic as an avatar next to it...

C
xxx

religion is philosophy explained to the unwashed mases, philosophy is what civilized men contemplate when they do not fear the cosmic time out by the big sky daddy.

Well, we shold all know the The Bible was writen about 200 years after Christ's death (who probally existed)

spell check!

Moral systems can differ from one country to another. Within a country a moral system can differ from one era to another.

Moral systems are not of equal value. At its most basic, a national moral system that contributes to the survival and thriving of a nation is preferable to one that does not.

When evaluating a moral system it is often difficult to think beyond one's feelings. When two people clash over a moral system they should think of how each value system contributes to goals both hold.

Without a certain amount of national cohesion a country cannot survive. Nevertheless, if a country's value system encourages young men to fight for glory on foreign battlefields it is likely to get more enemies than allies. The examples of Germany and Japan come to mind. Fortunately, total defeat in World War II gave both nations a salutary lesson.

When evaluating a philosophical system one should try to distinguish between empirical and normative statements.

An empirical statement is either true or false. It can be evaluated using factual data.

A normative statement cannot be. One either likes it or one does not.

If statement can be stated using the word "should" it is probably a normative statement. "The government should not punish success," is a normative statement. "Tax cuts for the rich promote economic growth," is an empirical statement.

Our feelings often interfere with our ability to judge the truth of an empirical statement. Whether or not we agree that tax cuts for the rich promote economic growth will probably be influenced by whether we are rich, whether we like rich people, and whether we think we have a chance of becoming rich.

If we are to evaluate the effects of tax cuts for the rich we should evaluate factual data such as fluctuations in the top tax rate and the per capita gross domestic product, rather than our feelings.

We should also evaluate fluctuations in the median income. Economic growth can co exist with a decline in the standard of living for most people. Whether or not we like such a situation is likely to depend on how we feel about ordinary people and those born with lucrative talents.

The fact that my recommendations include the word "should" three times should indicate that it is often difficult to distinguish between normative and empirical statements. Nevertheless, we should make the effort.

Craig, Lotta, Texas, Zeebop,

Thanks! I'm enjoying this thread very much. I hope it continues.

I'm not sure what I can contribute to the discussion, but I'll jump in with a thought that's been on my mind lately:

Organized religion and morality to me seem to be tied at the hip. Social morals need the authority of a higher power to have impact and organized religion needs the high-ground of good social morals to impose it's will on society. What I'm saying is that I think religion was invented by man as a way to keep the poor from killing the rich. I know I'm over-simplifying things; there are so many more reasons for constructing and codifying a religion. Everyone I think of though (e.g. building wealth, creating hierarchies of power), are self-serving first.

I don't know if there is a God or not, but I do think there is something more than randomness. I think there is quite a bit of difference between the idea of God (or some other plane of existence) and the idea of organized religion.

hello anybody here, anybody believe there not here...anybody