The illusion of morality

[infamous]

My vision is clear, and with it I see that morality is an illusion,

Understanding that written law is the offspring of our moral code, the next time that you are arrested for breaking one of them, I'll come visit you in prison. We can then discuss whether they are just illusions or not.

 

It sounds to me, taking into account a few comments you have made on other threads, that you are on a crusade to make a few questionable activities legal, or at least socially acceptable. Just curious, might one of these be pedophilia?

[infamous]

 

Morality is a difficult subject to neatly define.

Excellent post CraigD; The purpose or intent of the heart is central to the question of morality.

[Panjandrum]

I am not on any crusade. I realise that laws are 'real' in the sense that they are enforced, I think you are failing to understand the philosophical point the maker of this thread was making. The question is not whether laws and morality exist in human minds, but whether they have any underlying validity beyond mere convetion. I would contend that they do not.

[Racoon]

The question is not whether laws and morality exist in human minds, but whether they have any underlying validity beyond mere convetion. I would contend that they do not.

 

Do animals, insects, trees, or plants have Morality??

I don't think morality exists in the animal kingdom; other than survival strategies. Therefore, one might say that Morality is a man-made concept.

 

Morals do however have validity because modern humans have more reasoning and intellectual capabilities. Ethics...There are times of immorality, such as in War, starvation, and aftermaths of natural disasters,... that might make someone ask if there really is such a thing as right or wrong??

[Panjandrum]

Do animals have opposable thumbs? Would you claim they are man-made? Whether morality exists amongst animals is irrelevant, the question is whether it has an inherent component in humans, or whether it is simply a social construct.

 

Morality can vary on a society-by-society case but still have an inherent basis. For instance, individual languages are, obviously, social constructs, but the capacity for language is a human trait. Is morality in a simmilar position in the relationship between nature and society?

[arkain101]

I am not so sure I agree.

 

Morality is a natural self managed and maintained thing. It does not require opinions looking into the subject, it is a subject that unfolds when an opinion expands outwards.

 

Here is what I mean. Morality is versitile, but it originates from inside each and every person. You cant write down what is right and wrong on paper, But a human being will always have there inner repsect and rights to how they should be treated. If it hurts another person with the intention of doing so it is not morally right according to the reciever of the act. It is up to each person to manage the morals in their own world and for others to respect their wishes.

Obviously there are alot of glitches in humanity, and respecting others wishes is not so often performed.. but as we have clarified morality is different, but I believe it is so is because it originates from the inner of each conscious being. It is easy to tell if you are being in moral when the response you get is obviously breaking anothers morals with intentions to do so... Kind of a difficult thing to explain .

[Panjandrum]

Does that mean you believe morality is inherent? How then do you explain people who have no mental illness who none-the-less lack morality? Does thier existance not imply that morality is a learnt capacity?

[Buffy]

Is morality in a simmilar position in the relationship between nature and society?

Um, yes. People do seek a clear dividing line between genetically based behaviors and learned (social) behaviors, when in fact there rarely is one. Older more ingrained behaviors can and do become genetically based because it is more efficient and reliable for them to become so. It is rather pointless to try to definitively put the ill-defined term (at least in this thread) "morals" as being capriciously "enforced by society" or having a "fundamental basis." Some important points to consider:

• "Morality" is an extremely vague term that encompasses both general and specific behaviors. Some, like the hesitancy to kill (especially among one's own familial group), have been shown to be genetic: they also have well known counters, like the urge to protect which might turn homicidal. Conversely, there are "morals" which seem to exist to counter inherent behaviors that are not beneficial to the social group (see next bullet), but which might be arguably capricious, for example the prohibition against homosexuality (discussed elsewhere). The latter group may over time--if they prove to be essential to survival--become genetically based.
  
• Society is an organism. Social learning is its method of "genetic transfer" of the elements that allow it to survive. As Infamous points out above, societies teach morals and create social structures *specifically* to survive. If societies let "anyone do their thing" without limits, those societies do fail. Social morals are all about survival, and *that* is their "fundamental basis". You may not agree with the society that homosexuality, or masturbation or drug imbibing is "wrong", but each have evolved on very logical bases. To the extent that they do not *severely* affect the survival of the social groups, these morals may go away: it was not long ago that inter-racial marriage was considered immoral by the majority, maybe someday homosexuality will be similarly accepted. Social morals do not have to be "absolute" to be real *and* in many cases *justified* (albeit for brief periods of time).
  
• Morals evolve just like any other trait, and disagreement with them or a refusal to follow them can in fact change them over time. They are developed *both* by reason and forsight (homosexuality is bad because it reduces population growth, which reduces the potential for control and dominance by the social group) and through Social Darwinism (Jesus' teaching to "turn the other cheek" is just a variation of "with an eye for an eye, we all end up blind"). The point here being that the provenance of morals is actually irrelevant to their validity or survival over time.
  
• Morality and Religion are intertwined, but it does not take the existence of God in order to see why morals have developed and evolved. It is clear that historically, political structures have been intimately connected with religions, and Divine Right has been a strong justification throughout most of human history for establishment of absolute power (up until the Enlightenment). But they don't have to have been engraved on a rock on Mt. Sinai to have come into existence. Without morals none of us would be here today.
  

Like Craig sez, its a really complicated topic, and the key is to avoid black and white and think in shades of gray...

 

No man is an island,

Buffy

[Panjandrum]

interesting post. I'm going out now and so will answer you tomorrow.

[arkain101]

Does that mean you believe morality is inherent? How then do you explain people who have no mental illness who none-the-less lack morality? Does thier existance not imply that morality is a learnt capacity?

 

There is alot of explanations to those who lack morality. It is not related to my point. The point that morality is different and subjective becaues it originates from the inner part of each individual.

 

There are alot who lack morals, but I suppose that could hint there inner thoughts and opinions of themselves.

 

I suggest as one said, it is not black and white..it is not right or wrong, it is subject, or relative to what each individual makes it.

 

but the point I stress the most is its not a thing that can be taken out of the insides of people and written on paper as the way. But more as the does and donts each person could wear as a sign on there body in regards to how they prefer to be treated by others.

[Panjandrum]

It seems you are mystifying morality, making into something that cannot be explained. How then do you think that the members of a given society tend to share the same morality?

[Panjandrum]

Older more ingrained behaviors can and do become genetically based because it is more efficient and reliable for them to become so.

 

Agreed. However, I don't believe that any part of morality beyond the geneticly necessary basics of 'dont **** your sister' and 'dont kill each other' has been practised for long enough to have become genetically ingrained.

 

 

Society is an organism. Social learning is its method of "genetic transfer" of the elements that allow it to survive.

 

Are you talking about memes? I understood that was simply an analogy, not an accepted theory of social propagation.

 

Morals evolve just like any other trait

 

I disagree. They change, or are abandoned. They are not living things in their own right.

 

They are developed *both* by reason and forsight (homosexuality is bad because it reduces population growth, which reduces the potential for control and dominance by the social group) and through Social Darwinism (Jesus' teaching to "turn the other cheek" is just a variation of "with an eye for an eye, we all end up blind").

 

Do you honestly believe that homosexuality was considered immoral because it slowed population growth? How then would you explain its existance amongst all societies and even amongst other animals. Or its aceptance in some societies, and even its encouragement?

 

Morality and Religion are intertwined, but it does not take the existence of God in order to see why morals have developed and evolved.

 

I disagree. I can see no logical reason for morality, beyond its use as social control.

 

Like Craig sez, its a really complicated topic, and the key is to avoid black and white and think in shades of gray...

 

Agreed 100%.

[Buffy]

Agreed. However, I don't believe that any part of morality beyond the geneticly necessary basics of 'dont **** your sister' and 'dont kill each other' has been practised for long enough to have become genetically ingrained.

And your point is? Its not that they "become genetically necessary" its just that those who acquire this kind of genetic trait have a better chance of survival, and yes, that takes time. So?

Are you talking about memes? I understood that was simply an analogy, not an accepted theory of social propagation.

No, strictly speaking, memes as defined are "pop culture," they come and go rapidly, and while they may contribute to social propagation, they are not the sole mechanism.

Morals evolve just like any other trait

I disagree. They change, or are abandoned. They are not living things in their own right.

Evolution is "change or abandonment". What are you disagreeing with here and why?

Do you honestly believe that homosexuality was considered immoral because it slowed population growth? How then would you explain its existance amongst all societies and even amongst other animals. Or its aceptance in some societies, and even its encouragement?

Sure, why not? It *does* on a *logical* basis, reduce the number of offspring because you are not maximizing the number of individuals involved in full-time procreation, which in most societies with neighbors competing for resources is a tremendously useful goal! The reason homosexuality exists everywhere is because it *is* a genetic trait (your argument, actually forces those who think it is not to justify why it does exist everywhere if it is only a "wrong lifestyle choice" that *must* be learned!). Enlightened societies will understand that excessive promotion of procreation will lead to Malthusian resource allocation issues (at least in the short-term, even if you disagree with Rev. Tom), and thus abandon prohibition of homosexuality as you have seen in Europe and is slowly happening in America.

Morality and Religion are intertwined, but it does not take the existence of God in order to see why morals have developed and evolved.

I disagree. I can see no logical reason for morality, beyond its use as social control.

You don't seem to be following this train of argument: Society is an organism and has its own mechanism for control, namely morals and laws, which historically were rooted in the mechanisms for developing and organizing groups into cohesive functional units that are more effective and functional than individuals, via religion and politics. As they developed together (as described in my previous post) the line between laws and morals is rather obscure if not completely indistinguishable.

 

To the extent that societies benefit the individual (only Turtle would really rather be in the forest with his survival wagon, and he'd still want an internet connection to chat with all of us!), it is at the very least a symbiotic relationship, and to the extent we can develop egalitarian and democratic structures, it is arguable that the goal is for man to be the master of society rather than the other way around.

 

Now a bunch of us have been trying to get this across: the *logical* reason for morality, is *survival* of *both* the individual and society. Individuals agree to laws that oft times don't seem fair like "if I accidently run into your cow, I have to pay for it" or morals like "thou shalt not commit adultery" its because *you* may be on the receiving end, and you may *directly* benefit from it. You may feel like its "impinging on your freedom" when you're boffing the babe at the office, but when the shoe is on the other foot, you may not be happy that your wife is sleeping with your best friend. Morals and laws have an interesting effect that you really need to look at *both* sides before you can see that they are logical. Morals that are *not* logical (slavery used to be moral you know!) are selected out via evolution.

 

Evolve or die,

Buffy

[CraigD]

Society is an organism. Social learning is its method of "genetic transfer" of the elements that allow it to survive.

Are you talking about memes? I understood that was simply an analogy, not an accepted theory of social propagation.

No, strictly speaking, memes as defined are "pop culture," they come and go rapidly, and while they may contribute to social propagation, they are not the sole mechanism.

I believe the term ”meme” as coined by Dawkins ca. 1976, refers to “any unit of cultural information”, either short-lived and trivial (eg: “orange is this year's black!”) or long-lived and profound (eg: “thou shall not kill”). The often-confusing distinction between idea and memes appears to be that, for an idea to usefully be termed a meme, it must be communicated between individuals.

 

The “’genetic transfer’ of the element that allow it [society] to survive” that Buffy describes appears to me to be nearly exactly the same idea that Dawkin was describing in his several essays in which he coins the term “meme”.

[Buffy]

Craig is right as usual of course. I was just leaning on the fact that its main colloquial use recently has emphasized the pop cultural element... All hail Dr. Dawkins...

 

Memetically,

Buffy

[Queso]

wow.

[Southtown]

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.

Right. Morality is when perfectly logical decision-making is defiled by irrational influence, such as compassion.