What is 'morality' ultimately about?

[hug]

Please participate in the POLL: What is "morality" ultimately about?

 

Then, after a suitable number of people have participated, and after the results are "in", it would be informative and fun, I think, to have the discussion. What is morality ultimately about? What do you think?

 

If you find this question interesting and important, please let your friends in other forums know about this poll. Thanks.

 

"hug"

[Tormod]

I must admit I don't think any of the choices are suitable for me.

 

Morality is very dependent upon setting. I think perhaps I might have opted for something like "Relatively ARBITRARY RULES that members of a group take for granted and try to live by or circumvent" as the least value-based option.

 

:hihi:

[hug]

Tormod -- or other roving being of wisdom -- I think I may have made a mistake. Although it's fine to have this poll in this particular area, I assumed that all polls would be given community-wide and shown on the community-wide polling area. If that's not the case, do I need to retype and re-enter the poll in the community-wide area? I'd like as many people, with diverse views and backgrounds, to take the poll as possible, so I'd like to get it into the community polling area. Do I need to recreate the poll there, or perhaps in any thread (philosophy, sociology, psychology, study of religion, etc.) where I'd like to poll people?

 

Thanks.

[Tormod]

Only certain members can post polls in the "community polls" area. You have posted it in the correct place, which is the forum that is related to this particular poll.

 

Do not recreate the poll. Remember, this is a forum with lots of parallell discussions, so it may take a while for people to come across your poll.

 

Every time someone replies to it, or casts a vote, it will appear on the "Recent posts" lists.

[hug]

Tormod, thanks for the info. Two questions: What is required (in terms of number of posts, credentials, or pre-screening of particular poll questions) to allow someone to qualify to put a poll question in the community area?

 

Secondly, if the answer has to do with some very large number of posts, or long-term participation on the site, and if I wouldn't qualify yet, I would be most happy if you would post the question in the community poll area as written, and you would have my complete permission and support to do so. My goal here is not "credit" or anything, it's simply to see what a large diverse population of intelligent people would say. Of course, the question is not just a philosophical question for people interested in philosophy. (It's actually a vitally important question today.) It will also make for a great discussion after the poll results are in, especially if the results reflect a broad cross-section of people, many of whom wouldn't consider themselves as "philosophers" in the narrow sense of the term. So, if it turns out that I can't qualify to post on the community poll section, can you, or one of the other moderators, post the poll there? Or, can you suggest a qualified site participant who would be interested in the subject and might be willing to post the question?

 

Thanks. Cheers. "hug"

[Tormod]

I added a "Not sure" option and moved it into the Community Polls section. Sorry for the delay, hug.

[hug]

Thank you Tormod! Very well done. I appreciate it. Now, it will be very interesting to see what the poll results are, and what people say. Thanks again. "hug"

 

"It is all too evident that our moral thinking simply has not been able to keep pace with the speed of scientific advancement."

 

-- Tenzin Gyatso, the Dalai Lama, from his editorial/opinion piece, "Our Faith in Science", The New York Times, Nov. 12, 2005.

[freeztar]

I voted for arbitrary rules.

None of the other answers really made sense to me.

[Buffy]

I voted for Arbitrary Rules, but I see this list has having many problems, mostly to do with the mixing of Goals and Strategies. Arbitrary rules are a Strategy (I think Natural is another) that I think runs through most morals, but they can have Goals that are all over the map, such as Peace or Happiness. Moreover, people can have different and fully supportable reasons for chosing one or more of these goals and justifiably claim that the other Goals are immoral (Sex for example).

 

Because of the cognitive dissonance that this conflict sets up, I'm not sure you're going to get any clear results here (and as you're a new user, I'll warn you that Hypography is highly prone to selection sampling errors because this is a very unusual and self-selected group), but its hard to tell because we don't really know what your hypothesis is here. We'll have to wait for that shoe to drop I guess.

 

According to a Hypography survey, 99% of everyone is wild about science,

Buffy

[hug]

Hi Buffy. Thanks for your participation and comments!

 

Yes, I know that the list contains a mixture of things, but there is a reason for that given the purposes (or at least my purposes) of the poll. The possible poll responses are based on the range of ways that many people do think about morality if you sit down and discuss it with them. I've studied the matter for a long time. Many people often say "arbitrary rules", and some say "sexual stuff" and others associate morality mainly or completely with religion, and so forth. Many philosophers would often give the "happiness" answer, because some of the most popular and well-understood philosophies, by some of the most respected philosophers, are utilitarian, and there is a focus on maximizing happiness, among the broadest range of people, in most utilitarian philosophies.

 

So, I'm not really trying to force people to choose among a list of "like" (similar type) options. I'm trying to get the initial raw input and reaction you get when people have all sorts of common options to choose from, and to do so all within the ten options that are allowed in the poll. It is actually revealing (in a good or at least neutral sense) that many people on this site, being scientifically and/or at least logically trained, see that the options are not all of the same type/category.

 

And yes, this is clearly an un-scientific poll, for many reasons, including (among others) the bias/background of people on the site as well as the very small sample size even if there is a good response, which I hope there will be. The conversation after the poll will be quite interesting, I think, on one of the most important subjects today.

 

Alas, according to my understanding of morality (which I'll share as I listen to others and participate in the thread), slaying vampires is a moral thing to do under some circumstances, as long as you are completely sure that they are indeed vampires, and as long as they are killing/hurting others with their bad vampire habits. That said, if at all possible, you should first try to catch them and put them in jail, and even that is after you try to warn them, of course, because some of them just might change their evil ways based on a good firm warning. But, after all is said and done, if they are killing or harming others, then yes, slaying them (as a last resort), under certain circumstances, is a dirty but necessary-and-moral thing to do. And, I guess, someone's gotta do it.

 

Within this context, and looking forward to the learning that can take place after at least a decent number of people participate, I do hope you'll encourage anyone you run into to participate and give the response that comes most naturally to them. Your points are correct, I agree, but I'm trying to gain answers to a question that is not quite the same as the question you might be thinking of (for example, if you allowed people only to choose among the "aims" or ''ends" of morality), in order to prompt discussion.

 

Indeed, (and a question for you to think about, if you like), if you wanted to learn about the ultimate "aims" or "ends" people might have for behaving morally themselves (i.e., if you wanted to ask something like, "What do you believe is the ultimate or most important reward for moral behavior?", or something like, "Why behave morally?"), then you would probably give a set of possible answers including the following, perhaps among others . . . .

 

* Having other people treat me the same way

* Having other people respect me

* Respecting myself

* Going to Heaven

* Moving onward and upward in my spiritual progression from life to life as I am reincarnated

* Knowing that I am living in harmony with the natural moral laws of the universe

 

. . . and others. But, that's a slightly different question from the one asked (although there is some overlap), not quite the same as finding out what people think morality is all "about", off-the-cuff. For example, if you ask the question about "ends" or "aims" or "rewards", people don't even have a chance to say that they think morality is mainly about arbitrary rules, if that's the case.

 

Anyhow, I hope this is helpful. Thanks for participating!

 

Cheers. And thanks for your comments and help. "hug"

[Buffy]

I'm trying to get the initial raw input and reaction you get when people have all sorts of common options to choose from...

As long as you're walking in with eyes open, that's just fine!

It is actually revealing (in a good or at least neutral sense) that many people on this site, being scientifically and/or at least logically trained, see that the options are not all of the same type/category.

I think its just confirmatory of the obvious conclusions about "science types." But more importantly, we've had *lots* of discussions about morality here, where the same lack of agreement about what was even being talked about was touched upon. Getting consensus on a clear definition of a word as loaded as "morality" (especially across language and cultural lines) is somewhat problematic.

...slaying vampires is a moral thing to do under some circumstances, as long as you are completely sure that they are indeed vampires, and as long as they are killing/hurting others with their bad vampire habits. That said, if at all possible, you should first try to catch them and put them in jail...

Most of them are stupid enough to attack first, so its usually just self defense. The good ones usually try to reason with you first and non-vamps are usually wisely scared to death by the sharpiness of the stake. The worst are the ones that are all nice to you and pretend that they're good but go around demanding all sorts of special treatment because what they have to say is important.

Within this context, and looking forward to the learning that can take place after at least a decent number of people participate, I do hope you'll encourage anyone you run into to participate and give the response that comes most naturally to them.

"Hey! Everyone vote! Its important! hug sez so!" How's that? :D

 

We'll see what comes in, but you do have a jaded audience on the topic here, and they're all chomping at the bit to talk about the next level of complexity: its not that you should limit this to one dimension, its that the topic is a complex interplay between multiple dimensions. If its "natural law," morals are absolute and cannot be adjusted. If its arbitrary, we're adjusting them all the time. In the former we have to talk about legitimacy of morals in a context of their original source, whereas in the latter we have to talk about their value in the current environment. If we consider some of the listed Goals, we have different gauges against which to measure the desirability of various morals, and how do we handle the social dynamic that mediates between arguments on the validity or relative value of those measures?

 

You're absolutely right that picking one dimension is limiting, but that's missing where the complexity lies. But by creating an unorganized list, you may appear to some to create an equivalency among the options that those who perceive this topic as complex--pretty much meaning the entire target sample group--end up being annoyed about, thus defeating your purpose of exposing the issues.

 

This is a facinating topic, and its an interesting approach you're taking, but there may be more effective approaches given the membership and history of this place.

 

Now, everyone go prove me wrong! :)

 

Slaying off at the mouth,

Buffy

[hug]

Buffy: Thanks for the message and continuing participation and warning.

 

I'll be sure not to attack first. :naughty:

 

Yes, the subject of morality has been my focus for quite some time, from the scientific, philosophical, and cultural standpoints, so I'm hoping that we can re-energize the topic and take it farther and deeper than it sounds like it's gone on the site before. That's a main reason why I'm trying to first understand what folks currently think, off-the-cuff and raw fashion.

 

As you probably know, the actual science focused on human morality has come a long way in recent years and even in recent months. Although the word "morality" does carry with it much baggage and even more confusion, the science of "how people treat other people, and where all that came from, and why, and how we ought to treat other people, and what 'morality' is all about" has come a long way.

 

From a scientific standpoint, scientists and others such as Darwin, W.D. Hamilton (theory of inclusive fitness, aka "kin selection"), Robert Trivers (reciprocal altruism), E.O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins ("selfish gene", although that can be a misleading phrase unless one understands what he means), Robert Axelrod ("The Evolution of Cooperation"), Jared Diamond, Robert Wright ("The Moral Animal"), Matt Ridley ("The Origins of Virtue"), Leda Cosmides, Steven Pinker, Michael Shermer ("The Science of Good & Evil"), primatologist Frans de Waal ("Our Inner Ape", and "Primates and Philosophers"), and more recently, Harvard psychologist Marc Hauser ("Moral Minds") have all written on the subject and added to the understanding.

 

Given that base of material and understanding, plus some additional thoughts, I actually think the forum can help all of us learn (including me!) and even, perhaps, move the subject forward!?

 

But, as you suggest or imply, we do have to separate and extricate ourselves from the semantic and definitional matters to get to the science and logic/philosophy of things. Yes, there is alot of excess baggage associated with the word "morality" in our broad culture and probably throughout the world, but we can (and should) shine some light on that, because it is important to move through the confusion, and scientists who work most on the matter do use the term alot, from a scientific standpoint. Darwin himself used the word "morality" or variations of the base word "moral" over 100 times in The Descent Of Man, and, as you can see from recent books ("Moral Minds", "The Moral Animal"), scientists and science writers use it commonly. Indeed, science can shed alot of light on the wide range of answers that the poll will probably yield. And, although the discussion should be interesting and fun, in my view anyhow, some of the options in the poll are much more on target than others.

 

If you'd like to know more about my work on the subject of morality (from a scientific and philosophical standpoint), visit my website -- (I guess I don't know how to post a url here, but you can find it under the name ObligationsOfReason.) (Sorry, I don't know how to do links here yet.) But, as with everyone and all of us, there is alot I don't know!, and alot left to learn. So, I'm eager to learn alot from the site and its participants about this subject and others, and I can contribute a good amount of understanding about the science and philosophy of morality along the way.

 

Indeed, having studied the science (and still studying, of course), and the philosophy, I'm actually very curious about the state of understanding and views (of morality) in the culture and even in groups of scientists and philosophers. That's why I started with a question to gauge views and reactions. I'd very much like scientists and philosophers to become part of this thread, if they are interested. We are all humans -- so everyone's invited. That said, I'm especially interested in having some biologists, geneticists, neuroscientists, philosophers, sociologists, and psychologists, who are interested in the subject, involved. (MBA's too; I'm an MBA also.) And anyone interested in talking about what "Children of Men", "Babel", and yes, "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" can tell us about morality that coincides very well with the science of the matter.

 

All that said, I do feel a bit bad and scolded, because I did in a way ask for special treatment in asking you folks if you would post the poll in the community-wide section. Given your comments, I have demonstrated at least one of the symptoms of vampirism. Today, I'll make sure to check that my skin is OK in sunlight, and tonight, I'll make sure that I sleep in a bed, not a coffin. If I do ask for special treatment again, please point it out. :) Thanks.

 

"The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them." -- Albert Einstein

 

"The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probable -- namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well developed, or nearly as well developed, as in man." -- Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

 

"I am convinced that we must commit ourselves to the view that a universal ethics is possible, and that we ought to seek to understand it and define it. It is a staggering idea, and one that on casual thought seems preposterous. Yet there is no way out."

-- Dr. Michael S. Gazzaniga, recent former President of the American Psychological Society, member of the President's Council on Bioethics, former distinguished professor and director of the Center of Cognitive Neuroscience at Dartmouth, and now a professor at the SAGE Center for the Study of Mind, at U.C. Santa Barbara, from his book, The Ethical Brain

 

"Empty is the argument of the philosopher which does not relieve any human suffering." -- Epicurus

[silverslith]

I voted "natural fabric of the universe" (the only one so far)

I'm not happy with a view of morality that gives priority to our species.

I'm also not happy with arbitary rules as situations always crop up where its seemingly immoral to follow them.

I'd call truth fairly central to my view of morality, but if people definately would rather not know, sometimes to lie is more pleasant. I guess thats a moral quandary.:naughty:

[tmaromine]

I chose /other.

 

It's between Fairness and Justice, and Happiness, Peace, and Natural Morals. Different cases has different 'levels' of each to consider...

[Eclogite]

What does morality achieve? The answer to that question may lead us to a clearer understanding of what it is.

 

Morality, when successfully applied, delivers several results that are beneficial to the individual and to their society.

a) Encourages co-operation between individuals and groups

:) Favours respect for personal space, property and rights

c) Contributes to the protection of the weak, the sick, and the elderly

 

Thus, morality is a tool that promotes suvival of the individual and of the group. Therefore I voted Survival of the human species.

[hug]

Thank you for participating Eclogite. Wise choice. Thanks again. "hug"

[eric l]

I voted "fairness and justice" though both are defined in a way by morality.

But "arbitrary rules" seems a bit insufficient, also because - I think - it is not just about "getting along" but aimed at improvement.

The rules are not just arbitrary, but have been tested and proved to be valuable. That is why e.g. a nomad society has other rules than sedentary society, which in turn may be an explanation for some contradictions in the laws of the Old Testament.

On the other hand, what you think "fair" or "just" is probably influenced by things like religion (if you have grown up in a religious society) or other standards that are not based on logic or reason.