Morality And Ethics Without Absolutes

[YDOAPS]

Morality is strictly a human affair.

No. Morality is a sentient affair. It is born of people, not just humans. For example, chimps show morality.

[Vortex]

Damn near every fraternal group has a something in motion.[

Huh?

 

Additionally, no one has the right to live, be comfortable or not be tresspassed upon.

 

I would disagree. Each of us has the right to live unmolested and to try and realize our potential, (or not), without interference.

At least until such time as one denies some else to do the same.

 

It's apparent that human beings have evolved with a need for socialization, for community, for family, for building tribes and cities and nations. We generally all want to live and be happy, and the best way to do that is to live together in peace.

 

Here, I think, is the crux of the matter. Those values wich enhance societal cohesion are those we term "moral" those whic do not are labelled "immoral".

 

As to the question of moral absolutes, they exist, but they are few.

 

Raping a child is always wrong.

 

Killing another human being that has not curtailed, or attempted to curtail the life and freedoms of another human being is always wrong; unless it is their wish to die.

 

Torture is always wrong.

 

Slavery is always wrong.

 

There may be others, but at the moment they are the only ones that come to mind.

 

These moral absolutes exist without reference to any sort of divine being. I can think of no sane person arguing for indescriminate murder, child rape, or torture.

 

As a side note, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were morally wrong. It would have been just as east to drop it far enough out to see for its' devastating effects to be seen. Or vaporise Mt. Fuji. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "virgin" cities, (not having been bombed previously), thus selected for the "tests".

[Vigile]

This has been overdebated on this board. Dave, I agree with your last post.

 

Vortex, always is a pretty big word. The only always I think can be rationally applied is the fact that there are always exceptions to the rule.

[woodsmoke]

Killing another human being that has not curtailed, or attempted to curtail the life and freedoms of another human being is always wrong; unless it is their wish to die.

 

[Vortex]

Killing another human being that has not curtailed, or attempted to curtail the life and freedoms of another human being is always wrong; unless it is their wish to die.

 

 

 

I am in favor of those with terminal illness terminating their life if they wish, and to have assistance if they require it, providing they are not mentally incompetant of making such a descision.

[Dhampir]

Raping a child is always wrong.

 

Killing another human being that has not curtailed, or attempted to curtail the life and freedoms of another human being is always wrong; unless it is their wish to die.

 

Torture is always wrong.

 

Slavery is always wrong.

These are not absolutes. What constitutes these immoral acts? I could name instances of the latter three, and possibly all of them where certain other societies wouldn't necessarily consider them wrong.

 

To find absolutes, requires that we dip into the very lowest possible denominator, things that only the 10 or 12 most depraved persons in history could ever consider being less than wrong. That is the problem though, because who wants to base their morality on that? Most people wouldn't come close to that level of evil.

If everyone honored them (an idealistic irrationality I know) then there would be no conflict. Conflict always comes from someone violating those rights, or from a perceived violation and retaliation without all the facts.

If everyone honored the rights to try to live and comfortably, then that would come into conflict with the idea of the right to try to live without being trespassed upon. Simply because conflict is human nature.

[webmdave]

Morality is strictly a human affair.

No. Morality is a sentient affair. It is born of people, not just humans. For example, chimps show morality.

 

 

They do?!

 

So if a chimp male eats one of his children, what crime or sin has been committed. That happens from time-to-time, where you aware of that?

 

Chimps have rudimentary social bonding which is the real foundation to moral beavior.

[woodsmoke]

Killing another human being that has not curtailed, or attempted to curtail the life and freedoms of another human being is always wrong; unless it is their wish to die.

 

 

 

I am in favor of those with terminal illness terminating their life if they wish, and to have assistance if they require it, providing they are not mentally incompetant of making such a descision.

 

I wasn't asking for clarification of your point, I understood it completely. I was simply making one of my own.

 

"...always...unless..."

 

That's an exception to the rule, right there in your own post.

[Vortex]

Vigile_del_fuoco1 has mentioned that the topic has been over debated, and I wouldn't want to be obnoxious to the on-line community here by prolonging the discussion if the folks here at Ex-C don't wish to. I also don't want to appear rude by not answering posts directed to me. (Hmmmm, a moral dilema....)

 

With respect Dhampir, I don't think the vast majority of people would advocate child rape, torture, or the killing of a human being who did not severly curtail the rights and freedoms of another.

 

There are instances in the past where some or all of these things were accepted by societies as being "good". I would submit that we, as a species have undergone a moral evolution as well as a physical and intellectual evolution. Because a behavior was accepted in the past as "moral" or "good" does not validate it as a "moral" or "good" behavior now.

 

I'd also like to clarify something you wrote before I reply:

What constitutes these immoral acts?

 

Did you mean What constitutes these [as] immoral acts? (i.e. What makes them immoral?)

[webmdave]

As to the question of moral absolutes, they exist, but they are few.

 

Raping a child is always wrong.

 

Agreed.

 

Killing another human being that has not curtailed, or attempted to curtail the life and freedoms of another human being is always wrong; unless it is their wish to die.

Agreed

 

Torture is always wrong.

 

I would agree, but plenty of people throughout history would disagree. It is only in very recent times in modern countries that torture has come to be thought of as immoral.

 

Slavery is always wrong.

I would agree, but the long history of human society is in stark contrast to that position. Slavery has only very recently come to be thought of as immoral, and only in modern westernized societies.

 

As a side note, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were morally wrong.

 

There are those who would agree with you. I happen to be one of those who disagrees with you. However, history is written, and the majority world opinion at the time was in complete agreement with the decision.

 

Again, morality is entirely a human affair.

[Vortex]

[

I wasn't asking for clarification of your point, I understood it completely. I was simply making one of my own.

 

"...always...unless..."

 

That's an exception to the rule, right there in your own post.

 

 

I agree woodsmoke, I didn't frame my position properly, and that's my fault. I should have written that it is always wrong to kill another human being who has not curtailed the life or freedoms of another that has no wish to die. Thus removing the "unless".

[woodsmoke]

Ah, but might it not be considered more moral to investigate the reason they wish to die in less black-and-white situations (f'rex, those not involving a chronic illness, as was mentioned)?

 

Many people who have done nothing to deserve it may wish for death at one time or another. Does that make it morally justifiable to grant them that wish?

 

There are instances in the past where some or all of these things were accepted by societies as being "good". I would submit that we, as a species have undergone a moral evolution as well as a physical and intellectual evolution. Because a behavior was accepted in the past as "moral" or "good" does not validate it as a "moral" or "good" behavior now.

 

So, in essence, our concept of morality has changed over time as knowledge and understanding are gained and societies evolve--thus making it relative to the development of human civilization(s).

[webmdave]

So, in essence, our concept of morality has changed over time as knowledge and understanding are gained and societies evolve--thus making it relative to the development of human civilization(s).

 

 

[Dhampir]

I would submit that we, as a species have undergone a moral evolution as well as a physical and intellectual evolution.

I wouldn't. We simply have the luxury of greater compassion.

I'd also like to clarify something you wrote before I reply:

QUOTE

What constitutes these immoral acts?

 

Did you mean What constitutes these [as] immoral acts? (i.e. What makes them immoral?)

For instance, in this society, killing of a man who murdered that person's father would itself constitute murder, hence it is immoral. But, in another culture, if a person is killied in what can be deemed an unlawful fashion, it might not be considered wrong for that person's progeny to seek revenge.

 

As to torture, that has always resided in the realm of moral relativism--a killer who takes victims by burying them and letting them run out of air might be in custody, refusing to disclose the location of his latest victim. Might be a hard decision, but I wouldn't be averse to progressively decreasing his comfort in an attempt to gain that info, if of course there was absolutely no other way that I could immediately think of. Considering that even self-defence killings don't free a person from the guilt of having taken a life--especially if in retrospect, they can think of a better way they could have dealt with the situation.

 

Conversely, our own law enforcement practices forms of interrogation and other things that some would consider torture, but which has never been classified as such (I'm not talking about recent war actions and the like). Some consider confinement by itself a form of torture, but by and large we accept it.

[Vortex]

So, in essence, our concept of morality has changed over time as knowledge and understanding are gained and societies evolve--thus making it relative to the development of human civilization(s).

 

Definite point to you woodsmoke. I hadn't thought about it that way, and when I read your post I found myself agreeing with it.

 

I just can't wrap my brain around the idea that as we have evolved, we find that there are some moral absolutes. But that is my difficulty, not anyone else's here.

 

Thanks for making me think.

 

[Edited for spelling error.]

[webmdave]

Some consider confinement by itself a form of torture, but by and large we accept it.

 

Good point, Dhampir.

 

Solitary confinement comes to my mind.

[Vortex]

Dhamphir:

 

As to vendetta, I would have to say that it is immoral because a person is deprived of life without due process of law. Because a society may sanction that behavior does not make it moral.

 

As to the torture of a person suspected of holding a victim that will die unless someone intervenes. That too is immoral. I would also classify certain law enforcement interrogation techniques as torture. (As to solitary confinement, I need to mull that over for a bit before I reply.)

 

As to your point about having the luxury of greater compassion, I again would respectfully disagree. There is nothing to prevent us from committing the same atrocities as our forebearers except for the moral evolution we have undergone.

 

I'd also like to thank you Dhamphir, for making me think. That's one of the great things about these boards.

[Dhampir]

As to vendetta, I would have to say that it is immoral because ...

Yeah, you would, and that of course is my point. Plenty are the things we consider wrong that others don't.

As to the torture of a person suspected of holding a victim that will die unless someone intervenes. That too is immoral.

Because...?

As to your point about having the luxury of greater compassion, I again would respectfully disagree. There is nothing to prevent us from committing the same atrocities as our forebearers except for the moral evolution we have undergone.

Thinking that you aren't capable of doing something you think is wrong is probably a good way to end up doing it. The proper circumstances will compel anyone to most acts. Nothing really prevents us from committing those attrocities. If the world fell apart tomorrow, our morality would quickly begin to resemble our more barbarous past. I'd agree that we wouldn't be that bad as a whole, given the example of our current society. We have developed morality yes, but it is contingent upon the constraints of our circumstances.

[The Paineful Truth]

Wwebmaster wrote:

 

Regarding the dropping of bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, my point with asking the question was to illustrate something about morality. Even people who are generally like minded on numerous things may disagree when it comes to specific questions of morality. The answer to whether dropping those bombs was moral or immoral is subjective, relative

 

In that case, everyone's morality is correct, including those who believe in objective morality.

 

 

In essence, society at the time decided that dropping the bombs was the right thing to do.

 

Society has at times decided that involuntary human sacrifice was the right thing to do. Is subjective morality the prerogative of society? If so, then Nazi Germany was moral. Or could we morally repeal the 13th Amendment against slavery and reestablish it? Is it also an individual determination?

[webmdave]

In that case, everyone's morality is correct, including those who believe in objective morality.

 

Ah, I'm not sure that's true. Morality has to do with behavior, not beliefs.

 

 

Society has at times decided that involuntary human sacrifice was the right thing to do. Is subjective morality the prerogative of society? If so, then Nazi Germany was moral. Or could we morally repeal the 13th Amendment against slavery and reestablish it? Is it also an individual determination?

 

Unfortunately, the citizens of Nazi Germany did believe they were behaving morally. And as a matter of fact, most of Europe agreed that there was a "Jewish problem."

 

In the Middle East a great number of people believe that killing Jews is not only a moral thing to do, but divine.

 

Do I personally agree with that? No. However, I'll lay you odds that if you and I had happened to be born in the Middle East into fundamentalist Muslim families, we would have a completely different viewpoint of morality.

 

Society at large decides morality. If you decide to walk the beat of your own drummer on morality, if you stray too far from societal norms, you'll find yourself in a bit of trouble. Of course, that's up to you to decide. But society at large will decide whether your singular idea on morality is tolerable or not.

 

Now, you think slavery is wrong because of the time and place you live. If you had been brought up in the South in 1812 on a Southern Plantation, you would likely have thought that slavery was OK. You would have been taught since childhood that slavery was OK. Chances are, you'd have swallowed that moral viewpoint lock, stock and barrel. If you'd been born an aristocrat in ancient Rome, you'd have no problem watching gladiatorial matches and owning slaves. Those things were considered perfectly moral in that society.

 

Without humans, there is no such thing as morality. The concept does not exist in the animal kingdom.

 

Morality is strictly a human affair.

[Dhampir]

In that case, everyone's morality is correct, including those who believe in objective morality.

No one's morality is correct or incorrect. At best all one could say about a superior morality is that it is better, not correct.

[Mongo]

In that case, everyone's morality is correct, including those who believe in objective morality.

No one's morality is correct or incorrect. At best all one could say about a superior morality is that it is better, not correct.

 

Bang on!

 

The concept of morality is merely an argument framed as an absolute. A statement of what one or more individuals should do, wrapped up in absolutes.

 

Those for or against, frame their argument in terms of morality... which they intend to present as being some sort of universal logic.

 

Taken to a higher level of deception, the scoundrels of this world will proclaim that their argument (a moral one of course) is blessed by something supernatural.

 

Yet... there is NONE amungst us that will not at some time or perhaps frequently, present their arguments as being moral.

 

I argue that the hell doctrine is amungst the most vile of immoral teachings.

 

Morality, like ALL mental concepts are flawed representations of reality. We cannot discuss life and society without the concept of morality but it is and always will be different for each of us since no language can bring us to mutual agreement. Morality is what we each of us think it is and since the nature of morality discusses how we treat each other, we all natural look toward each other for guidance and agreement.

 

People go wrong when they present morality as having a single definable point of reference exterior to each individual. The intent is unify people but the result is to subtly steal the individual's freedom to choose. Both governments and clerics are adept at this. Is not the bill or rights a statement of morality that believers (in the bill) present as universal truths? In reality, it is just an argument on how we should get along in this world... a good argument and one I would describe as moral. In reality however, it is just an argument that is inherently neither good nor bad unless I or anyone else says it is.

 

My determination of that morality is subjected to my intellect, knowledge and experience of living. There is nothing absolute in my assignation of morality... it is ALL inescapably relative to my point of view.

 

Any attempt by anyone to portray their point of view as having a more "absolute" or "fixed" point of moral relevance is an attempt to cause others to confer to them rather than search inside themselves to grasp the issues and cast their own vote.

 

I can't offer any absolutes but only a strict warning to we very wary of anyone who does.

 

Mongo

[Vigile]

Just thinking out loud here. What does morality really mean in the first place? Unless we are sociopathic, I think everyone feels a sense of morality, but to what end? Aside from those morals that are legislated, what gives ultimate meaning to what essentially boils down to a feeling.

 

Let me attempt to show an example.

 

I happen to believe that the US invaded Iraq in order to shore up oil supplies in the ME. Laying asside other arguments for the moment and assuming I'm right, I think most would deem invading a foreign country for thier oil an immoral action. But so what? It's immoral. Is Dick Cheney going to go sit in the corner and shake because I wag my finger of indignation at him?

 

A few years ago I was driving on the interstate and an 18-wheel semi absentmindedly cut me off forcing me onto the shoulder. After we were safe again I drove up beside him and honked my horn to protest his violation of my driving space. My wife started laughing at me and said "you're Muffy!"

 

Muffy, you see, is my parents little lap dog. While tiny, she stands up for her rights when she feels she has been violated by barking her displeasure. The thing is, she's just a lap dog. She can't win and her barks are pittiful. Just like my honking at the gigantic truck that drove me off the road. Just like my moral outrage at the present administration.

 

So what is morality? Is it just an emotion? And if so, to what end?

[The Paineful Truth]

Unfortunately, the citizens of Nazi Germany did believe they were behaving morally. And as a matter of fact, most of Europe agreed that there was a "Jewish problem."

 

In the Middle East a great number of people believe that killing Jews is not only a moral thing to do, but divine.

 

Do I personally agree with that? No. However, I'll lay you odds that if you and I had happened to be born in the Middle East into fundamentalist Muslim families, we would have a completely different viewpoint of morality.

 

And if we acted according to that "morality" by committee, we would be wrong and immoral. Part of the responsibility for our humanity is to stand against injustice, even in the face of being outnumbered. Relative morality has you defending genocide and slavery for those societies that deem it to be moral.

 

Animals have no imperative for morality, because they are innocent. They can neither defend their ego nor force it on others, because they have no ego.

 

"If you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth."

— Mohandas Gandhi

[Ex-COG]

Just thinking out loud here. What does morality really mean in the first place? Unless we are sociopathic, I think everyone feels a sense of morality, but to what end? Aside from those morals that are legislated, what gives ultimate meaning to what essentially boils down to a feeling.

 

So what is morality? Is it just an emotion? And if so, to what end?

And...if such a thing as absolute ethics exist, where do they come from and what are they based on? For the religious of any belief system, it comes from God, or at least is attributed to Him/Her by the leaders of the religion. For some, it comes from the state, your nation, or society; but that just puts us back to the argument that as society changes, morals and ethics change. For more independent thinkers, it's based on inner feelings and emotions, along with early training as much as from any serious thought. But then that conflicts with other independent thinkers (just look at this thread!), so it can't be absolute.

 

So, again, if absolute ethics exist, they must stand outside and apart from humanity. If we discount the existence of God, where do these ethics come from? A universal law? The Force? Aliens?