The illusion of morality

[motherengine]

this may be a tired subject for some or all, though my interest in opposing opinion in relation to it compels me to continue:

 

morality is collective belief system that no being has any inherent responsibility to adhere to. murder, rape, molestation, etc., though illegal, are not 'evil' or 'wrong', but in the minds of those who believe them to be so. guilt is a societal aberration.

 

now i am not saying that this is what i believe, though i can find no non-metaphysical argument that shows ethics to be rational outside the realm of social conformity.

[Panjandrum]

I agree. Morality is arbitrary, a learned an not instictive system. It is a tool developed by societies to control thier members, an attempt to rationalise irrational, 'communal' behavior. It is no coincidence that it is so often asscociated with that other great societal control mechanisism, religion.

[infamous]

The context of morality will change with contemporary consensus, however, morality should reflect the proper interests of a society for the conservation of standards regarding it's beneficial maintenance................Infy

[Racoon]

Not only is morality an illusion..,

 

This thing we call "Life" is an illusion

:evil:

[Sobabi]

I dont think morality is an illusion. I think it is very much real. I think the problem arises when you set a supernatural standard for the meaning of "real" or "inherent" morality, while already disbelieving in the existence of this "supernatural reality". Evil and bad, are simply words which culturally defined meaning, and such so is morality. In that sense, I think you can say things are inherently bad or evil, when bad and evil are culturally defined. Of course if you don't beleive in god, but attach a religious meaning to bad and evil, then you will feel that the link between "bad and evil" and morality is arbitary.

[Panjandrum]

In what sense is morality real? Do you believe it is instictive, or inherent within human beings?

[Sobabi]

In what sense is morality real? Do you believe it is instictive, or inherent within human beings?

 

Lets just say that I don't think that moral norms have to be universal for them to be real. I think these norms are partly instinctive (would not have paid off in an evolutionary sense if people just killed each other for the sake of it), partly cultural; but it is real in the sense that we feel it and and deal with it in our day to day lives.

 

I guess in a sense, I am not really saying anything different to anyone else, except that it is self evident, that by denying the existence of a higher moral order (which i personally don't think exists), then you will not find a logical link between morality and "good and bad", unless you accept a culturally based definition for these words aswell.

[Panjandrum]

So basically youre saying morality is real in the sense that people say it exists. Well thanks for the amazing insight.

 

I'll clarify. What do you think is the basis of morality? Do you think it is basically inherent or instinctive, or do you believ that it is basically social?

[Racoon]

So basically youre saying morality is real in the sense that people say it exists.

 

Reality is the reality YOU create.

If you create Morality in your mind, then It Exists! :shrug:

 

This World is but an Illusion

[Sobabi]

So basically youre saying morality is real in the sense that people say it exists. Well thanks for the amazing insight.

 

I'll clarify. What do you think is the basis of morality? Do you think it is basically inherent or instinctive, or do you believ that it is basically social?

 

Well what you are asking is I think in my opinion an Anthroplogical question rather than a philosophical one. My guess is that it is the result of a combination of cultural and biological evolution, a product of natural selection over the instinctive sense of right and wrong, as well as one over a stable moral, political and legal order in society. Bilogically it would not make sense for people to kill each other (as such a creature would be highly disadvantaged when it comes to survival); and culturally, certain moral orders would be so unstable as to lead to a collapse of that system, and its refinment (through whatever process), towards a more stable socio political system (you cannot only oppress half the population of a society - eg women - for so long until, they will fight for their equality). In every system, those who do not abide by its social and legal norms will often be seen as outcasts and ... .

 

The point of my original post is that its not necessary for morality to be universal for it to be real. It was in response to mother engines statement that you cannot say that murderers or rapists are 'bad' or 'evil' people; and I responded that ofcourse you can. 'bad' and 'evil' are are only words, culturally defined, and in that sense ..........

[Panjandrum]

Hmm. I understand. So you would agree that 'bad' and 'evil' are simply labels, though you would have no problem with their use to describe people who do not accept the prevailing morality of a society?

[infamous]

I would like to ask everyone involved in this thread to consider a few questions:

 

Let's establish a few ground rules and ask the following:

 

Would an action taken, resulting in the extinction of the human race be morally acceptable?

 

In my humble opinion, such an action would not be. If we can establish this foundation upon which to build a definition for morality, we might get somewhere. Morality is not an illusion!!!

[Panjandrum]

I don't accept any fundamental basis for morality. As such, the action you mention would be moral if there existed a philosophy in which genocide is moral.

[infamous]

I don't accept any fundamental basis for morality. As such, the action you mention would be moral if there existed a philosophy in which genocide is moral.

Stand for nothing and you'll;..........fall for anything.

[Panjandrum]

So what is the basis of your morality? Do you simply accept what your parents told you is true, or did you formulate your own attidues to what is right and wrong?

 

For my own part, I saw early on in my childhood that morality and law are arbitrary and unucessary limits to place on yourself. I have never allowed anyones morality or beliefs to influence my actions. I am a free agent, unhindered by morality. My vision is clear, and with it I see that morality is an illusion, a lie taught to children to persuade them to be compliant to the will of society.

[infamous]

a lie taught to children to persuade them to be compliant to the will of society.

No, not to the will of society, for the benefit of society which we are all a part ...................Infy

[CraigD]

Would an action taken, resulting in the extinction of the human race be morally acceptable?

Infamous asks a seemingly simple, but difficult question!

 

As I understand the common meaning of the word (which, the pages of hypography have amply show, varies widely), intention is a critical factor in deciding the morality of an action. An action intended to cause no harm, but that resulted in the extinction of the human race (eg: the attempted insertion into Earth orbit of a resource-rich asteroid resulting instead in a catastrophic impact) would, therefore, be moral, while on intended to extinguish the human race (eg: a failed attempt to engineer and release a “superbug” biological weapon) that failed to have any ill effect, is not.

 

The above examples assume effectively perfect knowledge of intention and outcome. Most real-world decisions lack such perfect knowledge. For example, consider the famous case of great technologist and cult hero Nicola Tesla and AC electrical power transmission. The ability to generate electricity at remote facilities and deliver it to practically any location has had tremendous positive impact – without it, we’d be unlikely to be sharing our thought on this internet board. However, the unexpectedly high demand for electricity (Tesla, it rumored to have believed that the entire Northeast and Mid-Atlantic US regions could be supplied by power generated by hydroelectric facilitys on the Niagra river), and economic pressures to generate it at acceptably low costs, have resulted in increased air pollution believed to cause about 10,000 unnecessary deaths a year in the US. Similarly, the modern understanding of the atom is essential to most areas of modern Physics, but made possible the design, creation, and use of nuclear weapons.

 

Morality is a difficult subject to neatly define.