We are writers. It's a metaphor. You can go off on a red herring tangent pouting and avoid dealing with the underlying problem, or you can defend your beliefs. Your choice.
I'm not convinced that we can apply morality to non-humans. After all, morality is a human construct. In nature, acts aren't inherently good or bad. Good and bad are values we assign to acts. They are abstract concepts that I doubt any other animal can comprehend. Taking chimps as an example, their idea of "good" and "bad" is based on self-interest and immediate rewards. If they violate any social rules, other chimps won't play with them. Humans are better thinkers and are capable of considering the interests of others. In fact, most moral systems (utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, etc.) require the person to assign values to the interests of others and make decisions based on that. I don't think any non-human animal can do that.
Maybe this is too simplistic, but I look at morality as opposed to amorality. An amoral individual does what he or she wants to do, regardless of its effect on anyone else. This is individualistic behaviour. On the other hand, a 'moral' individual is always conscious of group welfare, and what benefits the group. A moral individual will often suppress their own individual desires and needs for the 'good' of the group. Individuals want to survive and thrive. Individuals need to eat. If food is scarce, amoral ones will take what they can get and not share it out, so that they can live as long as possible. However, the moral ones also know that if their 'race' is to carry on, everyone needs to eat. So a moral person, in that situation, would divide up the food so that everybody gets some, so they ALL survive. Both techniques could be considered 'selfish,' but from different angles. Preserve the individual, or preserve the individual's group. Hmmm...maybe I need another coffee to sharpen up the brain? You guys are all way ahead of me here. Normally our amoral and moral aspects can co-exist. It's when they can't that trouble starts.
I wasn't aware I needed to defend anything, I am perfectly content having a mutual conversation with my friends about morality without it becoming a tit-for-tat debate. I would like to have a mature conversation without accusations or belittlement of other peoples beliefs or opinions. ...so that is what I shall do! (Huzzah for freedom!) Back on topic, (My humble apologies for the sidetrack. ) where does this inherent morality come from? How can we know that it's wrong to murder another human being without ever being exposed to that particular belief system? Is it because we are aware that we are, indeed, alive ourselves and we wouldn't want to be dead, so we extrapolate that belief onto others? or, as the African Proverb says, "One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts."
That's an interesting idea. What if this person does what he/she wants to do, but that act is also good for the group (but they want to do it for selfish reasons). And to take it a step further, what if, by pure coincidence, everything this person wants to do is also good for the group (but still selfish). Are they moral, or amoral? (Interested in your thoughts). If they are amoral (because they are acting out of self interest only), for an outside observer, I guess we can't judge the act (or the person) unless we know what they are thinking. So what you seem to be saying is morality is about how you think. The act itself is neutral, and its the intention that matters?
Feelings. Decisions based upon logic and reason require thinking, and that has emerged WAY too late in the game for evolution to favor it. Using a simpler system of reactions to stimulus based upon feelings means that our morals can come from there, but of course they can be influenced by your daily life. No one ever thinks they're the bad guy, even when they are...
Kind of, I think...2nd cup of morning coffee in play. However, I'm not sure where this puts 'empathy.' Is empathy a learned behaviour, leading to morality? Or is it instinctive? And while empathy can certainly benefit a 'group,' that can maybe be too simplistic, too. There is no doubt, some people find empathy very easy, while others don't. I wonder if those who are empathetic, are simply people who are able to put themselves into 'other people's shoes' and feel what they would feel in a similar situation. In other words ...an unselfish act (empathy) filtered through a selfish motive (do unto others as you would want them to do to you.) Fun, hey?
Personally I think morality is as simple as acceptance of certain behaviour within a group or culture. Morality has changed over time and will keep changing. It was once moral to marry young girls and impregnate girls as young as 12 or 13, and it was once immoral to show your ankles in public or have sex while not married (and for many these things are still immoral). Now these have generally switched in some cultural groups and remain the same in others. Some religeous cultural groups consider things immoral that other groups find moral. Even murder is moral in some countries, like the honour killings western nations frown upon (and me). But for those cultures, they kill to preserve their sense of morality. Some cultures, nudity is totally accepted while in others it is still immoral. It's a weird beast.
Hmm. You're right, empathy is an interesting one. My gut tells me that empathy is not about morality, but more about human to human relations. I'm going to go out on a provocative limb here and say it may not be instinctual and compare it to love, which could also be considered "amoral" in the sense that it is just about how people interrelate, and feelings toward specific individuals. Can we be empathetic to some and not to others? If so, what does that mean for our morality - which should be across the board. We tend (for better or worse) to be more empathetic to like people or those to whom we can relate easily (look at our views toward Africa versus events affecting our community/street). That leads me to think that empathy is ingrained, but perhaps social conditions can foster or undermine it. That's just my gut however, and the first evening glass of wine is now taking effect
This raises an interesting point. Does morality flow in a society toward 'good' triumphing over 'evil' or does it eventually shift back the other way, with society becoming more 'immoral.'? Eventually there must be a 'morality saturation' where all the wrongs in a society are righted, yeah?
I think it opens a can of worms by deciding what is good and evil according to whom, with all due respect to your faith. I think the very idea of what is good and evil changes parallel with morality.
The term "inherent morality" doesn't make sense to me. I believe that social conditioning is partly responsible for our moral principles. I don't believe babies are born knowing good from bad or right from wrong because as I mentioned in an earlier post, these are abstract concepts that are defined by society. I think it has to do with mutual interest more than anything. If there is nothing preventing me from killing someone, there's nothing preventing him from killing me, either. So assuming that we both value human life, it's in everyone's interest not to murder.
It hasn't always been immoral to kill. In fact, depending on the context, it still isn't. War. capital punishment. Self defence. Etc.
I wasn't quantifying the terms on purpose. For our uses the terms don't really matter. I think we've All agreed that there is 'bad' and 'good' relatively speaking without giving them specific context or origins. It's a good place to start. Besides, without a basic understanding that there is good or bad, the can be no morality.
Religion in the past worked with guide lines in mind Love,Respect etc. Nowdays we start to extract ourselves from religion because it has come to a point where it has become more like shackles, we use God as a scarecrow so we don't jump certain lines you do those things you go to heaven otherwise it's highway to hell for you my friend, i am Cristian but i never read the bible except the revelation, my brother who has though told me that if you call your brother stupid you are going down,Religion didnt stop people burn women at the Dark ages because they were supposedly withces and doesn't stop them now to critisizing Gay people and making them outcasts. As a society we need a set of rules guidelines so we can function in harmony together, i can't just go and kill someone just because in my moral code this is an OK thing, (whether i believe in nihilism, universalism) no mater how much i hate him, [MENTION=5272]thirdwind[/MENTION] what you said about killing it made me think of the Cold war more than morality,and there is always the guy willing to take that one more step. Morality is something everyone needs to think for himself and as we grow,evolve and leave ideas like religion behind us things are going to get harder until we balance the scale back to a place where even if God doesn't exist we need to respect people around us no matter the choices they make.
For me this is both true and not true. It all depends on what is meant by 'good' and 'bad'. As I've said, I'm a moral nihilist.
While I respect your views, perhaps, as a Christian, you should read the Bible more yourself. Start with the gospels and you may get a better understanding of sin and forgiveness and love other than your brother telling you. He may mean well, but I'm afraid he's misled you a bit. Not to get too off-topic, but the Bible says that we are all sinners and that from birth, we all lack enough morality to spend eternity with God. But through Jesus's sacrifice on the cross, we are forgiven of all our 'stupid calling' and can be washed clean of our sins just by admitting our faults and asking God to forgive us. That is the crux of the Bible. If you want to know more, feel free to PM me. As far as 'religion' being a shackle, I'm sure there are some religions out there that believe in murder or suicide or discrimination, but I don't follow 'religion', rather I have a personal relationship with God. That's not some 'set of rules' that can be 'left behind.'
Yes, but what I am saying is that we are not denying that the concept of a 'good' and 'bad' are the two parts to morality. Now, you can argue that morality doesn't really exists, in which case neither does good and bad.
Sure, my real point with that post is just to demonstrate that sometimes a block to talking about morality is that people can use the same words to mean different things. Best to keep this in mind when discussing morality.
Considering the interests of others = the emotion of empathy. The evidence speaks for itself and this is one of those cases where old school is going through a paradigm shift. The old paradigm was akin to what you speak, humans are 'special' in the animal kingdom. This used to be said about tool use, it made humans 'special'. Crows were observed using tools. Then it was said about tool construction. Crows were observed bending wires into hooks to retrieve food. It was said about the ability to think ahead and problem solve. Crows were observed using one stick to get a longer stick to get food with. It used to be said about language, that made humans 'special'. Now we've identified large vocabularies among many different species. Then it was syntax, claiming non-human primate brains couldn't learn human language. Turned out there was a critical period in early development and if exposed to human language then, chimps and bonobos have indeed been capable of applying rules of syntax. And it turns out this is also true in human child development. The child must be exposed to language during a critical period or the individual will not be able to learn language later in life. Now the old school still holds the belief that moral thinking makes humans 'special'. Turns out researchers just weren't looking for it. Now we're finding evidence of moral thinking in all kinds of species. And we find the lack of it in other species. It's not about anthropomorphizing, it's about recognizing humans are not as special as once believed. Just search online for the studies and you'll find a cornucopia. New Questions About Animal Empathy Strong Evidence of Empathy Among Ravens THE COMMUNICATION OF EMOTIONS AND THE POSSIBILITY OF EMPATHY IN ANIMALS So just what is it we can do that perhaps other animals cannot? Discuss the philosophy of morality. The Evolution of Morality But as for having moral thinking, we are not unique in the animal world.
Maybe he did but i don't believe he did in on purpose , i still don't like the idea that i was born unfit to live with God i do find God to be a cool Dude in my head , i like this Quote that is a Buddist teaching, and don't really know if it has any other meaning to, it says '' If you meet Budda on the road kill him'' and it means that you are not under anyone not even the supreme being you believe in. thanks for your offer i will take you up to it someday Religion or not killing is wrong no matter the reason, a religion that kils under the name of their God is even worse since they dont have the guts to take responsibility for their action. . i have to go for a little i will be back in half an hour to continue so i hope what i am saying makes sense.
I like harken back to the vast majority of human existence, where murder, rape, theft, and violence were commonplace (as opposed to now, where collective force usually says no, except when it is the 'other'). In that realm, the one where most humans lived, morality may have existed, but it took a long time for it to matter. The experiment we've been having with societies based on agriculture, for the past 6000 years, have included very complex morals and ethics. They spring from stories, and may make people happy, but they don't represent the reality...which is we aren't very far removed from the realm where violence was just a thing. We pretend we are, but we aren't ready to transcend. We can debate morals coming from books or from belief systems we though up, but they simply cannot be universal. What cruel idea would it have been to deny it to the vast majority of humans?
[MENTION=5272]thirdwind[/MENTION] "God-like figure necessary for morality? Or can we come up with moral principles using reason and logic?" Sure we can come up with moral principles via reason. The more difficult question is whether we ought to. I think it was Plato who implored us to develop our reasoning faculties. I inferred that in doing so, we'll better at determining right from wrong, not only when dealing with moral problems, but also with practical conundrums. For example, with the use of reason, we can evaluate consequences and determine the morality of actions based on those consequences (consequential ethics, and its kin, utilitarian ethics.) The difficulty is in determining whether a consequence is good or bad, and that's where reason comes in. "...moral nihilism (nothing is intrinsically good or bad)" "...After all, morality is a human construct. In nature, acts aren't inherently good or bad. Good and bad are values we assign to acts." The latter post is, no doubt, influenced by your study of "moral nihilism". On the point, how do we know whether something is inherently good or bad? Personally, I think of it differently. To me, "any act is good AND bad." "Taking chimps as an example, their idea of "good" and "bad" is based on self-interest and immediate rewards." Can't you say the same about many humans? Have you read about Nietzsche's work on Slave morality? I've just scrapped the surface, but he said that there are two types of conscience, bad conscience and better conscience. Bad conscience is sparked by the moral laws that society creates; attempting to violate these laws creates guilt. It is the guilt that prevents us from acting out "immorally". Better conscience comes from within. I have not read about this yet to know what it is, but I'm assuming it means following one's internally generated moral principles. From what little I've read, the idea is that better conscience is more "natural"; when we really believe something is wrong, we do not act it out. Our actions or inactions are more sincere. This is related to virtue ethics (sorry, a multitude of ideas are invading my mind right now, driving me towards the brink of madness.)
But there are people who do believe that killing is always immoral. That's why there's a conscientious objector provision in the U.S. for one who has genuine beliefs of this sort from being sent to fight in a war. Those people are also against capital punishment. I don't think self-defense is quite the same, in that such a person would really only be preserving himself, would try not to resort to actually killing, and would feel very badly about it afterward. I heard somewhere recently that the people who are actually the executioners, or the guards who escort prisoners on death row to their actual place of death, have a lot of psychological issues that stem from this. Sometimes they are begged not to bring them to death, yet they cannot stop it. Even though they don't have the authority to prevent the prisoner's death, it takes a psychological toll.
As far as animals, as Ginger pointed out, there is a significant and ever-growing body of research about the emotional and moral lives of animals. Previously it was very easy for us to simply claim that animals were mere automatons, with no self-awareness or ability to feel empathy, compassion, or pain, or really the ability to formulate any sort of thought whatsoever. This made us able to simply do whatever we wanted to do with them without having to weigh their interests at all. It's much more convenient to do whatever you want if you don't have to consider the effects of your actions on others, and taking animals out of the equation was convenient. I've got a book in my TBR pile called The Moral Lives of Animals, which I am eager to read. I've read other books on animal emotion, and some animals have been discovered to have quite complex societies and there are elements of social shunning and conditioning that happen in groups, especially of primates. Dolphins and elephants have also been shown to be emotionally complex and to have group and familial affiliations -- these are what have led to the movements to free these two particular animals from captivity. There's a book called Chimpanzee Politics that has been shown to almost directly mirror the happenings in human politics. Just because we can't directly communicate with animals or understand their particular groupings, that doesn't mean that they don't have complicated thoughts or feelings about their own groupings, as well as about other animals. A lack of evidence is not evidence itself that these things don't exist. I'm not saying that they're necessarily as complicated as our own, but I don't see how we can say that they do not exist at all.
