The illusion of morality

[HydrogenBond]

Much of moral law has been extrapolated into cultural law. Thou shall not kill, steal, etc., are still in affect. Adultry has been watered down even though it creates victims and has led to murder and suicide.

 

Culture has more laws of right and wrong than traditional morality. In this forum "thou shall not write certain four letter words". Traditonal morality doesn't even go that far. The original laws were there to prevent real victimization. Social law is there to protect one from hurt feelings. I would prefer the old smaller law set; one page instead of a whole library.

[Southtown]

2.4 million in the US, and almost that many inmates.

[Panjandrum]

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

 

I can't tell whether you are serious with this or being sarcastic. Could you elaborate? This is the attitude I have towards morality generally, so I would be interested in discussing this aspect further.

[motherengine]

All hail Dr. Dawkins...

 

Memetically,

Buffy

 

nevermind.

[Southtown]

I can't tell whether you are serious with this or being sarcastic. Could you elaborate? This is the attitude I have towards morality generally, so I would be interested in discussing this aspect further.

Wow, a week later. Sorry 'bout that, I got a lot on my plate lately.

 

I was being sarcastic. In the words of Blaise Pascal, “The heart has reasons of which reason knows not.” (paraphrased for clarity)

[Panjandrum]

I that case, why do you think this definition is inaccurate? Do you think compassion and emotion are logical? Or simply that 'morality' is logical and rational?

 

For myself, I see no logic or reason behind morality. It seems to me to be an entierly arbitrary construction that I have no difficulty whatever in violating. In fact, I often have difficulty seeing why some behaviours are seen as immoral while other, equally or even more harmful actions, are not.

[InfiniteNow]

For myself, I see no logic or reason behind morality.

What about evolutionariliy? Can you think of any reasons why the concept we describe (and which some practice) as "morality" may have evolved?

[Southtown]

I that case, why do you think this definition is inaccurate? Do you think compassion and emotion are logical? Or simply that 'morality' is logical and rational?

 

For myself, I see no logic or reason behind morality. It seems to me to be an entierly arbitrary construction that I have no difficulty whatever in violating. In fact, I often have difficulty seeing why some behaviours are seen as immoral while other, equally or even more harmful actions, are not.

Exactly, compassion transcends logic.

[Panjandrum]

What about evolutionariliy? Can you think of any reasons why the concept we describe (and which some practice) as "morality" may have evolved?

 

Yes, I understand why it might have been useful, I meant that I personally could see no logic to it. I just dont get it. Why do people have morality? What do they, personally, get out of it? Why dont they just dump it if they can do better without?

[questor]

it would seem that those perplexed by the concept of morals are most likely

to be those that have no morals. if we have no morals, then what is to prevent murder, incest, rape, thievery, and any other crimes against society?

morals evolved over the centuries as a means of allowing people to live in harmony. morals are the parents of our laws, which have the same purpose:

fairness in all social intercourse and preventing you from harming your neighbors.

those without morals or respect for the law will usually become criminals or dead, because their activities tend toward that end. those who have no repect for morality are frequently surprised when they meet someone who has the same philosophy as they do, and can't understand why this person is willing to murder them or steal their belongings. a truly amoral person cannot be trusted in business, marriage, or any social endeavor because he only considers his own gain. since he thinks morality is only what you make it, he will generally be shunned by others as soon as they understand his game.

[Panjandrum]

This is all true. However, it does not demonstrate that morality exists in a non-arbitrary form. I dont murder people becaue I dont want to go to prison for the rest of my life. Given a situation where that wasnt going to happen, such a total collapse of central authority, I would have no 'problem' with killing someone if it were necessary or advantageous to me.

 

I would agree that I have no morals as such, but I am pretty intelligent, and Im sure I could understand the concept if it was explained in sufficiently clear terms, without an implicit assumption that I know what is being described.

[InfiniteNow]

Exactly, compassion transcends logic.

No, not really. Is logical in terms of survival, as a business sense in societies based more on bartering, reinforcing social ties, letting go of one's own suffering... all manner of logic can be ascribed to the concept of compassion.

[Southtown]

Two kids in a school cafeteria. One has lunch and another doesn't. The one with a lunch gives his/her sandwich to the one without. Why?

[CraigD]

it would seem that those perplexed by the concept of morals are most likely to be those that have no morals.

I conclude the opposite – that anyone who thinks enough about morality to be perplexed by it almost certainly has morals, and is actively rejecting some, refining others, and acquiring new ones due to this thinking. People who’s lives are little or not at all governed by morals spend little or no time, I believe, thinking about them.

 

The “person without morals” questor and others describes seems to me a close match for the a psychiatric idea known over the decades by the term “psychopath”, “sociopath”, “antisocial personality” or, most recently ”dissocial personality”. These people are numerically rare (though, many think, disproportionately prominent in culture and history). There’s clinical evidence of a neuroanotomical basis for the disorder, and strong theoretical and empirical evidence that it’s incurable by present medical technology or therapy.

 

Another, more common, I think, use of the phrase “person without morals”, (or amoral person) is to describe someone who has morals, but who’s morals conflict substantially with one's own. For example, I know people who consider it moral to use LSD, have and raise children without state or church recognized marriage, but absolutely not to eat meat. I also know people who consider it moral to eat meat, but not to use LSD or have sex (let alone children) out of wedlock. I’ve known people of both kinds to call one another “immoral” or “amoral”.

[InfiniteNow]

Two kids in a school cafeteria. One has lunch and another doesn't. The one with a lunch gives his/her sandwich to the one without. Why?

One possibility is unconsciously building stronger social bonds for future assistance. After all, much of the success of our species (and MANY others) has been the result of group behavior. Why would altruism evolve?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism

[Southtown]

Born out of thought for gain? LOL

[TheBigDog]

For myself, I see no logic or reason behind morality. It seems to me to be an entierly arbitrary construction that I have no difficulty whatever in violating.

This is a confession of being amoral. That puts you into a very small percentage of the population. You should feel special.

In fact, I often have difficulty seeing why some behaviours are seen as immoral while other, equally or even more harmful actions, are not.

This same thought accurs for everyone, and that is why we debate and elect and petition and vote and do all the things that make the living documents that are our laws a reflection of the humanity that they govern.

 

What is your purpose in starting this thread? To teach, to learn, or something else?

 

Bill