Origins of absolute morality?

[residualsquare]

Discuss. Responses should answer the following questions:

1. What is morality?

2. Collectivists: In the absence of the divine, where does morality come from? Do people have the capacity to discern morals from reason? Is there a universal reason?

3. Individualists: With individually defined perspectives on good/evil, isn't the notion of a democratic society distinctly undemocratic, in a way? That is, the establishment of laws and societal standards reflect merely upon the subjectivities of the majority, while condemning those of the minority. Consequently, how can one prevent a descent into anarchism?

 

[FoBoT]

what class is this homework for?

 

[residualsquare]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
what class is this homework for?

A response on a message board would hardly suffice for any homework assignment. Besides, I've been out of school for several years now.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Mmm, pie.

 

[Brainonska511]

Well, it really determines who you're listening too. Durkheim claims that morality comes through society while someone like Adam Smith claims morality is internal, just like the capitalistic economy (see Robinson Crusoe). I tend to side with Durkheim though as morality is a collective thing that a society comes to agree upon (which can be seen through the laws of said society as law is an empirical view of the morality of a society). I don't feel like going deeper than that on this question as I've had this discussion enough in my humanities and social science core classes.

 

[Cuda1447]

In my opinion, there are NO universal morals. They are all decided on an individual basis and NONE more valid than others. In other words, there is no way to say something is immoral. Anything can be considered moral, based on whose making the decision.

 

[residualsquare]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Well, it really determines who you're listening too. Durkheim claims that morality comes through society while someone like Adam Smith claims morality is internal, just like the capitalistic economy (see Robinson Crusoe). I don't feel like going deeper than that on this question as I've had this discussion enough in my humanities and social science core classes.

Haha, let me guess: first year at UChicago, Swarthmore, or the like?

I'm asking what you think, on the basis of what you've read. Citations are welcome.

 

[Modeps]

All the information you need for your homework assignment can be found here.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: residualsquare

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Well, it really determines who you're listening too. Durkheim claims that morality comes through society while someone like Adam Smith claims morality is internal, just like the capitalistic economy (see Robinson Crusoe). I don't feel like going deeper than that on this question as I've had this discussion enough in my humanities and social science core classes.

Haha, let me guess: first year at UChicago, Swarthmore, or the like?

I'm asking what you think, on the basis of what you've read. Citations are welcome.

Second year at UChicago. I took most of the core classes last year and just finishing social sciences this year. I did update my first post to include a little of what I think.

I've read a lot of books over the last 2 years for those classes:
To name a few:
Aristotle - "Nichomachean Ethics"
Plato - "The Apology" and the "Euthyphro"
"Genesis"
Homer - "The Iliad"
St. Augustine - "Confessions"
Dante - "The Inferno"
Adam Smith - parts of "Theory of Moral Sentiments" and "Wealth of Nations"
Durkheim - "Division of Labor in Society"
Mauss - "The Gift"
Karl Marx - various writings (too many to list)
And that doesn't include any of the reading I did for 2 quarters of civilization or my third quarter humanities class.

 

[residualsquare]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
In my opinion, there are NO universal morals. They are all decided on an individual basis and NONE more valid than others. In other words, there is no way to say something is immoral. Anything can be considered moral, based on whose making the decision.

How do questions of legality, justice, etc. function under that?

 

[Amused]

Basic morality is just logical and actually stems from individual selfishness in a society.

We do not want to be murdered, therefore murder is immoral.

We do not want to be robbed, therefore stealing is immoral.

And so on. All based on the selfishness of the golden rule. Contrary to idealists, it is selfishness and not altruism that has made our society work.

More complex morality (i.e. sexual morality) comes from viewing social ills and attempting to fix them with arbitrary rules.

 

[Cuda1447]

Law is a form of controlling the masses for a common good. In a society such as ours murder is considered 'immoral'. This is something the VAST majority of people agree with. Not because it really is immoral, but because if there weren't a set of controls in place than it would be much more difficult for each individual to reach his own personal goals. I.E. If people are going around murdering, it will be difficult for me to become a doctor, as I might be murdered.


So in short. A persons morals are based off of what allows them to accomplish their goals best. If a persons goals is to eat as many cats as he can in his life, well then he won't think animal cruelty is immoral. Just like I want to get married some day, have kids and raise a family. Therefore, Im glad that murder is illegal, as is thievery and other violent 'things', as it makes it difficult for me to accomplish my goals.

 

[Fritzo]

Morals are a set of rules and rights that promote conduct that will in turn nurture an individual. If all individuals are nurtured, the society that person is associated with the grow and flourish.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: Amused
Basic morality is just logical and actually stems from individual selfishness in a society.

We do not want to be murdered, therefore murder is immoral.

We do not want to be robbed, therefore stealing is immoral.

And so on. All based on the selfishness of the golden rule. Contrary to idealists, it is selfishness and not altruism that has made our society work.

More complex morality (i.e. sexual morality) comes from viewing social ills and attempting to fix them with arbitrary rules.

Agreed.
Along the same line of thinking I am often irritated with organized religion.

EDIT:
In answer to the OP: There is no such thing as absolute morality. Each society has its own morality. More often than not they believe theirs is the best. A vist to foreign countries will help drive that point home.
Heck, a one week vist to each of the 50 states will definitely drive that point home.

 

[Vic]

Collectivism requires some type of "divine" externality in order to explain absolute morality. This is why the battles between the collectivist groups usually hinge around religion and state, either one substituting as a god-like authority that dictates what is right and what is wrong.

Individualism, however, relies solely on the Ethic of Reciprocity (aka "Golden Rule") for absolute morality. Treat others as you would like to be treated. It's very simple, and relies only on understanding that others are like yourself.
A concept which the collectivists will never understand because of their selfishness, ironically, each one believing he can (ab)use the power of the group to become a dictator.
OTOH, individualism requires an egalitarian worldview. All of you are just like me, therefore I will treat each and every one of you as I would wish to be treated.


edit: the supposed conflict of individualism and democracy was long ago settled with the development of liberalism: Text
Ironically, this is the only sustainable type of democracy, as mob rule style democracies always cannibalize themselves.

 

[R Nilla]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
In answer to the OP: There is no such thing as absolute morality. Each society has its own morality. More often than not they believe theirs is the best. A vist to foreign countries will help drive that point home.
Heck, a one week vist to each of the 50 states will definitely drive that point home.

The fact that different cultures practice different views of morality does not necessarily mean that such a thing (absolute morality) does not exist.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: R Nilla

Originally posted by: shortylickens
In answer to the OP: There is no such thing as absolute morality. Each society has its own morality. More often than not they believe theirs is the best. A vist to foreign countries will help drive that point home.
Heck, a one week vist to each of the 50 states will definitely drive that point home.

The fact that different cultures practice different views of morality does not necessarily mean that such a thing (absolute morality) does not exist.

Well, I sorta agree with your point, but its been said that its much easier to prove a positive than a negative.
How about instead of saying "does not mean does not exist" you tell me what does exist?

The only absolute moral I can think of is "murder=bad" and that one is violated so often all over the world I dont think people really care as much as they claim.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: R Nilla

Originally posted by: shortylickens
In answer to the OP: There is no such thing as absolute morality. Each society has its own morality. More often than not they believe theirs is the best. A vist to foreign countries will help drive that point home.
Heck, a one week vist to each of the 50 states will definitely drive that point home.

The fact that different cultures practice different views of morality does not necessarily mean that such a thing (absolute morality) does not exist.

Well... absolute morality really doesn't exist in a real world collective way. It's not an issue of cultural differences but of individual ones. The Golden Rule has different meaning to people who are into S&M for example than it does to people who aren't into such things. And so forth.
But that doesn't cloud the issue as much as one might think. Most actions that any reasonable person would consider to be immoral are not done consensually. And those that are probably aren't any of your business anyway.

 

[R Nilla]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: R Nilla

Originally posted by: shortylickens
In answer to the OP: There is no such thing as absolute morality. Each society has its own morality. More often than not they believe theirs is the best. A vist to foreign countries will help drive that point home.
Heck, a one week vist to each of the 50 states will definitely drive that point home.

The fact that different cultures practice different views of morality does not necessarily mean that such a thing (absolute morality) does not exist.

Well, I sorta agree with your point, but its been said that its much easier to prove a positive than a negative.
How about instead of saying "does not mean does not exist" you tell me what does exist?

The only absolute moral I can think of is "murder=bad" and that one is violated so often all over the world I dont think people really care as much as they claim.

I'm not necessarily trying to argue for absolute morality, just pointing out that the evidence you have provided is not a sufficient argument against it. Whether or not people behave the same way, believe the same thing, or "care" has nothing to do with whether or not there is such a thing as absolute morality. If I believe the sky is yellow and you believe the sky is red, that doesn't mean it can't be blue.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Amused
Basic morality is just logical and actually stems from individual selfishness in a society.

We do not want to be murdered, therefore murder is immoral.

We do not want to be robbed, therefore stealing is immoral.

And so on. All based on the selfishness of the golden rule. Contrary to idealists, it is selfishness and not altruism that has made our society work.

More complex morality (i.e. sexual morality) comes from viewing social ills and attempting to fix them with arbitrary rules.

best explanation in a nutshell :thumbsup:

nicely done.

 

[shortylickens]

OOOOO KAAYYY

So what you're really saying is that you arent saying anything, you're just being a grammar nazi.
I hate you. :|

I think I'll go search for some free porn now.

 

[R Nilla]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
OOOOO KAAYYY

So what you're really saying is that you arent saying anything, you're just being a grammar nazi.
I hate you. :|

I think I'll go search for some free porn now.

How is that being a grammar nazi? I'm saying you haven't disproved the existence of absolute morality because all you provided was anecdotal evidence. If you want me to be blunt, I was saying your argument is not sound.

 

[RightIsWrong]

I would agree with the sentiments that there is not....hence...my screen name. Morality is something that is decided on an individual level with context and circumstances that are inherently different for everyone thrown in.

Some of the examples given, murder and theft can be morally justified to anyone based on the context and circumstances.

Theft: You are a homeless mother and your children are under an overpass while you are trying to panhandle and you shoplift to feed them. Illegal? Yes. Immoral? Not to me.

Murder: Most are on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to abortion and/or capital punishment. Either can be viewed as state sanctioned or permitted murder.

As for resources, the most recent thing that I have read on the subject and I would very highly recommend it to anyone that is even remotely interested in gaining a completely different perspective on religion, thought process, morality and human nature is The Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
In my opinion, there are NO universal morals. They are all decided on an individual basis and NONE more valid than others. In other words, there is no way to say something is immoral. Anything can be considered moral, based on whose making the decision.

I agree/disagree. I think that there is no such thing as an objective moral code ( I prefer the word objective to universal as it is possible that everybody happens to hold the same moral opinion concerning a particular act ). All moral codes are personal. However, every single moral code is absolute, by definition. Moral codes can change over time, with experience, but the code, at any point in time would be absolute. Each individual can absolutely judge a particular act to be moral or immoral. That no one else agrees does not change the moral judgment of the individual.

 

[EGGO]

A man poked a guy.

Guy 1: OW *pokes back
Guy 2: Ow! That hurts too...now I know how it feels like.

And that's how it began.