Well, this opens up a discussion about the definition of "good." When God created creation and said "It was good." was he referring to moralistic values? One philosophy I am drawn to is scientific pantheism, which sees the goodness in creation, and holds to these principles: https://pantheism.net/ It's an approach to our existence and all that exists. Goodness begets goodness. I think limiting goodness to morality is a very narrow perspective. But your use of the notion of "beauty" raises an important question. Is beauty always good? But maybe we have to look at the overall picture. Predator-prey relationships keeps things in balance, and balance is good. God, yeah, it's better to have consciousness than to not. Without consciousness I do not exist. Maybe I am a believer that suffering leads to greater understanding and empathy. But there is a role for suffering in our existence. From suffering emerges wisdom.
I have found out that "ought" is a very important word in philosophy. To me, this use of the word "ought" implies external judgement. Who decides what you ought to do or what you ought not to do? The greatest influence comes from others in your group. This does not preclude that what you're doing is good for them. But to live with oneself happily is to belong to the group. But the group defines the morality. It comes first, then adherence (or non-adherence) follows. The norms of the group come from a pact made between those with power.
A child is born amiable, with no desire to kill or torture. Moral values are taught based on the innate feeling that are already there but a skewed for a desired outcome. Like they say, 'in your heart you knew it was wrong.' There is something inside of each and everyone of us that has a right and wrong meter without a moral guide that tells us so. Although history includes terrible acts by individuals and groups, our inherent sense of right and wrong will always prevail.
A lot of people do believe that empathy is the default position, that we are born compassionate, and it is only things like neglect and abuse that interfere in "normal" development. But there is no universally accepted notions of what is right and what is wrong. So, by this axiom, we can assume that Hitler thought that what he was doing was "right?"
Maybe this is the way to approach it: Would a child raised in total isolation from all human contact have any sense of morality at all?
Interesting. I'm a humanist, myself - I looked at scientific (or naturalistic) pantheism on wikipedia, but it confused me because it constantly referred to "God" (as in the Judeo-Christian god), whereas I thought that pantheism as a concept refers to many gods, not just one. Also, quoting from wiki: I am not sure about this. Does God "speak" through carbon atoms? Or nitrogen, etc.? What is the deity's position on aluminum, lithium or radium? Would he, she or it care to comment on Mutually Assured Destruction? This is why I very much like the following anecdote about Pierre Laplace. Laplace was a mathematician and astronomer who, in Napoleon's time, wrote a ponderous five-volume work on celestial mechanics. In it, using Newton's law of gravity, he painstakingly worked out the motions of the solar system in finest detail. Napoleon, who fancied himself (with only partial justification) as an intellectual, leafed through the early volumes and said to Laplace, "I see no mention of God in your explanation of the motions of the planets." "I had no need of that hypothesis, Sir," said Laplace politely. Another astronomer, Lagrange, hearing of the remark, is reported to have said, "But it is a beautiful hypothesis, just the same. It can be used to explain so many things." Perhaps. Astronomically speaking, our planet exists because, during the Big Bang, a very specific combination of elements and gases happened to coalesce at exactly the right time. That particular combination is and was conducive to our (and other) species to evolve. Humanity naturally assumed that this planet was especially made for us, especially since space is so incredibly hostile. We used to think that Earth was "made" for us, but we wondered for millennia who made it and why. Now we know what happened during the Big Bang, and it was not God stirring things up. Then again, we also thought that the familiar blue-green planet that we see in satellite photos, with its oxygen atmosphere, white clouds, and everything else that we're used to, was how the planet always was -- and that's not true; for about half of the Earth's history, it was covered in ice or molten rock. We don't know if the Earth is a typical planet. We don't know how common, 'aqueous' planets with oceans and continents and atmospheres are. In our solar system, Earth is the only one. We also thought the Earth was a very stable place - that is, if you could go back to the time when the oceans and continents first separated out, they'd have been in the same places they are now. And we thought the interior of the Earth was pretty simple. We were wrong. Scientists are not afraid of admitting their mistakes. Proving that your own hypothesis is correct or incorrect is what science is about. (Some scientists don't want to admit their mistakes, either because of pride or money, but pure science isn't like that). Similarly, religious people are not (and shouldn't be) afraid to admit they were wrong. The problem occurs when religious beliefs become dogma, and when that dogma is set in stone. But I'm not here to argue who is 'right'. If something works for you, good on you for figuring it out. I only hope you'll extend to me the same courtesy. That's a very deep question. In what context are we speaking? In theatre (and literature, and movies etc.) beauty is always good. Beautiful people are always "goodies", and ugly people are always "the baddies". That's how it is and how it will always be. In poetry, "truth is beauty and beauty is truth". If we assume that truth is always good, then yes, beauty is good. But we know that truth is not always good. You wouldn't say to an overweight person, "Gosh, you're fat", or to an elderly person, "Wow, you're old and decrepit", etc. In real life, beauty is also not always good. People who are lucky enough to be beautiful can be just as greedy, treacherous, malicious, and bloodthirsty as anyone, just as not-very-beautiful people can have beautiful traits, like generosity, humility, patience etc. (So are we talking physical beauty or moral beauty)? Religion, also, has its own definition of beauty. Devout people are said to be beautiful in the sight of God. But it is also possible to be so devout as to become a self-righteous, arrogant, ignorant snob. Surely that's not beautiful. So, yes: it's impossible to definitively answer this question without more context. I think there's some confusion here on the nature of the word "good". What do we mean when we say "good"? Do we mean "the opposite of evil", or "morally correct", or "as it should be"? Predator-prey relationships can hardly be said to be either "morally correct", or "evil", or "the opposite of evil", because neither predator nor prey think in terms of good and evil. A hungry shark, for instance, won't stop chasing a school of fish to start musing about philosophy. I may be I'm splitting hairs, but it's also possible that we're asking one word -- "good" -- to do more work than can reasonably be expected of it. All right. But it could also be argued that unconsciousness is sometimes better. If I were to undergo a painful and dangerous operation, I'd rather not be conscious for it, thanks. Logically speaking, yes. If there are no universally accepted notions of what is right and what is wrong, then even Hitler can think that what he was doing was "right". Evil people who think that their brand of evil is "right" are the most dangerous people. History provides us with many painful examples of what I refer to. There's a good reason why literary villains who think they are doing "right" are more memorable than villains whose sole motivation is "because I'm evil, duh". Those kind of villains tend to twirl their moustaches, stroke white long-haired cats, and mwa-ha-ha a lot.
I'm inferring here, perhaps wrongly, that you see the group morality as coming from somewhere outside of the universal human condition, like it's arbitrary decisions serving artificial whims as opposed to the codification of emergent human qualities. I don't think it makes sense to label our morals, and so values and behaviour, as imposed by the few. Of course you'll see those situations with Jim Jones or Kim Jong Un, but we rightly see those as failed, unsustainable social systems. Laws of course can be imposed by the powerful few, but not morality. See prohibition, illegal drugs, etc... Uh, well, the child wouldn't even be recognizably human at that point. I think he would have a sense of right and wrong but be totally unable to express it. I could be misreading here, but I see it more as Thundair saying that someone like Hitler, or even ten thousand Hitlers, can still not defeat our sense of right and wrong, and possibly not their own either no matter how terribly perverted their actions and rationale are.
I beg to differ. As Dark Helmet put it so persuasively: Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb. Of course, that only works when the "good" side is sworn to act in nonsensical ways in order to preserve its own sense of 'goodness'. The minute that a "good" person realises that his own goodness can be compromised in order to preserve the rest of the world, the "evil" side is in trouble. See also: Good is not Soft.
That doesn't work as soon as you include humans. Unless you think it would be better if a large chunk of us were still succumbing to basic predation? I can imagine a world where humans partake in natural balance, but it would be an awful existence. If it's me or all of the wolves or short-face bears, I'll gladly kill as many megafauna as I can until I run out of spears. Sugar I'm going down swinging.
Haha, I like that TV Trope. I'd say there's a sliding scale as to the flexibility of the moral paragon and what situations demand it. We know Batman wouldn't do so well in WW2. ...and Canadians had a reputation in WW1. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-forgotten-ferocity-of-canadas-soldiers-in-the-great-war But Canadians don't look back on that and say: "Yeah, it was right to kill surrendered Germans and tease them with cans of food followed by grenades."
Hitler and Jeffery Dahmer are outliers in the scope of things. And yes, you can coerce others into your way of thinking, but in the end, those that took part laid down their malignity and lead a quasi normal life. Evil will probably win out in the end, as it is easier to take from someone than to earn something yourself. Sitting in my civics class in 1955, I contemplated the world around me for the first time. And I recognize how much things have deteriorated since. I'm sure there is a chart somewhere that ranks the rise in quality of life to the deterioration of human virtue. Maybe I could get a grant to study it.
It's a different way of looking at the divine. I have never seen any reference to the Judeo-Christian God in pantheism. In fact, pantheism does not believe in a supernatural "creator god" that judges us. Instead, it sees the physical universe itself as "God." They consider themselves "spiritual, not religious." From their website: Scientific pantheists take Nature and the Universe as our start and finish point, not some preconceived idea of “God.” The worship of all gods and recognition of all religions is more correctly termed omnism - since scientific pantheists do not recognize a personal god. From the Wiki page: Another definition of pantheism is the worship of all gods of every religion. But this is more precisely termed omnism.[5] Pantheist belief does not recognize a distinct personal god,[6] anthropomorphic or otherwise, but instead characterizes a broad range of doctrines differing in forms of relationships between reality and divinity. Good questions. But it seems to imply a God separate from existence? For pantheists, Nature is God. So, if we want to say that "God speaks" it would be in the physical laws that govern existence. Yes, that's so. And scientific pantheism is careful to separate itself from religions and religious dogma. A context broader than a focus on physical beauty. You hint at it with your quotes from Keats: "Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know." Keat’s “Ode to a Grecian Urn” is about “how great art transcends our own short, mortal lives.” He is speaking to poets with that poem, telling them they “should embrace uncertainty and ambiguity to fully experience the world” and “pursue ideals of beauty without being limited by a preference for philosophical certainty.” Keats called it "Negative capability" which is – I think this understanding can be related to the pantheistic reverence for all of existence, for how all of existence “transcends our own short, mortal lives” and contains an eternal “beauty.” Where Keats and scientific pantheists may differ is in their pursuit of the “unknown.” Keats would say accept it; a scientific pantheist would say investigate it. Both Keats and a scientific pantheist (and really anyone) would see the sunset below and say, “Isn’t it beautiful!” Keats would then say, “The beauty is enough. It is the whole truth.” And a scientific pantheist would say “That beauty is good. I seek to understand it.” I'm not confused! I just don't limit the definition of "good" to what is moral. Certainly, we might say that to behave morally is "good." But I would also say that the wonder that is a human body, and all the processes ongoing to make a conscious life, is "good." And that goodness deserves our respect.
Not at all. But the most important part of the universal human condition influencing human behavior is our social nature. We are social animals, above all. We have morality to facilitate group cooperation and cohesion. As social animals, morality certainly gave us an evolutionary advantage - without reciprocity, for example, we could not have survived as the group. Yes, I would say that there is a universal morality that all children world-wide develop - notions of empathy, and fairness, and co-operation. But it is the power structures that decide the culture of morality. Do all people world-wide enjoy the same individual rights, or the same level of freedom? Have all human cultures had the same respect for human life? Do all cultures have the same moral codes? If laws are not based on morality, what are they based on? This little thought experiment gets to the heart of the question: "Is morality genetic or cultural?" I think we are genetically programmed towards some dispositions, but in the absence of group interactions and culture, no morality develops. So, a sense of "right and wrong" is subjective - but "good and bad" are objective?
Well, looking at the ecological balance, we are no longer prey, so this is somewhat of an untenable hypothetical. And of course the prey would not like to be eaten! But as I mentioned, I am looking at the big picture of ecological balance. One of the things I taught in high school science was the importance of predator-prey relationships and how they keep populations in balance. Hmm ... maybe it was once we stopped being prey and took over the world that ecological balance was lost.
Very interesting article. Thanks for sharing. I suppose in war, when you are fighting for your life, all morality goes out the window. Some reasons are offered as to why the Canadians were so vicious: And then there is the old Canadian stereotype: "Yes, we are very nice, but don't cross us."
What an interesting observation. I assume you mean the economic quality of life? Having all your basic needs met, and then more? Then, accumulation and comfort is the cause, and immorality the effect? If we define "quality of life" in a different way - to mean our sense of happiness and peace - maybe that is the effect of a high level of virtue (the cause).
Then, I suppose I should have said "immorality" instead of "morality". But there is definitely a relationship between morality and laws - even if in some instances it is an inverse relationship. But then I think of the Nordic countries - Finland, Denmark, Sweden - always rated as the happiest countries in the world. What morality drives their laws? Your observation seems related to what @Thundair hinted at - that more money and the more power means less morality. Is this true? Research does tend to support this hypothesis. That once power is acquired, you tend to lose touch with other people, are are more likely to behave selfishly, as explained in the 2-minute video below.
Well, we are no longer prey because we changed the state of balance. That would make us a bad thing, since current balance is a good thing, no? To be fair I admit I pulled a sleight of hand by suddenly including humans in nature. It's the same as me declaring an ICBM strike as a natural phenomenon: technically correct if you believe humans are not divine, but not how people use natural in the common parlance. Cue David Attenborough. Okay, revised counterpoint: just because animals have evolved to eat parasites does not mean that parasites are a good thing. They just bring suffering for their own survival. Just because nature has developed its current balance does not mean it's a good one, therefore I do not think balance is 'good.' There is always the possibility of there being a more preferable balance, sort of like what humans carved out for themselves. Not necessarily. Different cultures in history have had different reputations depending on the war. Perhaps it depends on how brutal things get (Germans turning Russians into roads in WW2), but there's culture differences too. Of course most laws tend to be based on morality. Usually they are a few degrees removed, and sometimes people disagree with the rationale. My point was that law can be imposed, but morality cannot. It's funny. Someone here once told me that honour killings are not a cultural feature, rather, just evidence of tyranny imposed by a select few. Basically nothing bad can be regarded as a cultural trait. I disagree of course. I'm willing to call the historical Aztec sacrifices wrong, objectively wrong. In the face of the wide cultural differences in values, and granted how long it took liberty to be accepted by a large portion of the world (this is pretty recent stuff we're living in) I'd say it's a matter of development. The Aztecs were underdeveloped or possible maldeveloped, both individually and as a group, which led to them seeing those sacrifices as acceptable. I more meant the objectively driven sense of right and wrong. Possibly. We are also genetically programmed to understand human interaction. We have emotion and desire that naturally occurs towards others, universal facial expressions, etc...
Well, we certainly overrode the ecological balance in certain places. Is environmental degradation immoral? I suppose so, if you accept that respect for Nature is part of your morality. Is morality only something directed at other human beings? Or is allowing something like what is shown in the picture below immoral? Interesting point. Taken in isolation, yes, parasitism seems like a bad thing. But what happens if we take a more holistic approach? What if we say, instead, how wondrous are the biochemical processes that are able to produce life - any life? Does any living thing have more right to live than any other living thing? Does all that matter is what is bad for me? I'm just wondering. That would make humans the gods, rather than Nature. Yeah, "just war" theory says the more similar two warring factions are, the more they agree on the limits to war: That's why it is so appalling when we see leaders dehumanizing perceived enemies. I suppose morality does work with a different form of persuasion, but I do think going along with the moral norms of one's particular group/culture is a big motivator in human behavior. I don't think this exists, since everyone has different ideas about what is right and what is wrong.
I surmise the pursuit of money, and power is a false hope of happiness. Yes, life is easier when you have money with more choices. But I feel the desire of wealth and power is more of how others view your success and where you are in life’s stations. A friend of mine who was a holdover from the 60s, who hated the pompous rich idiots, and yet bragged about her daughter dating a doctor who drove a Mercedes. It is not uncommon for the elite to forgo their inner voice and delve into bizarre behavior. We can look back all the way to the Romans and see how affluence has taken down these mighty empires. History shows a decline because of internal issues, but letters and ancient historians paint a different picture. If people are isolated from purpose, whether rich or poor, it will drive them to feel something, to do something, to take away the doldrums of just existence. A friend of mine who is well off—from an invention—bought a house in Pacific beach with a great view, and after the parties and excitement died down, he said he lives in two rooms of this big house bored to tears.
Ah yes, status! Nobel Laureate economist, John Harsanyi, said that “apart from economic payoffs, social status seems to be the most important incentive and motivating force of social behavior.” Renowned neuroscientist, Michael Gazzaniga, noted, “When you get up in the morning, you do not think about triangles and squares and these similes that psychologists have been using for the past 100 years. You think about status. You think about where you are in relation to your peers.” It must be related to self-worth. Our purpose is our reason for being. Everyone needs a purpose. For several years, my complete purpose was to be caregiver to my disabled husband. I wouldn't trade one day of that for anything. It made the connection between us eternal. We grew so incredibly close. I still feel like we are one being. But then he died, and I needed to find a new "mortal" purpose. I put all my focus on my nieces and nephews. For example, Mondays are my days with my grandniece and my grandnephew (aged 11 and 12). Today, we went to McDonald's and then the trampoline park. Two friends joined. These are sweet, sweet kids. They are constantly surprising me with their wisdom. If you ever want a lift in life, spend time with young people! My grandnephew was the last one I dropped off, and as I was saying goodbye, I told him I loved him, and added, "I can say that to you now, without embarrassing you in front of your friends." He replied, "Oh, no, Aunt Louanne, you can say that in front of my friends." He was all in favour of expressing love at every turn. I remember one time when we were driving home, and in a moment of silence, he piped up, "Aunt Louanne, I really appreciate you." And so, I conclude: Our purpose is love.
First is self-aware. As a young man, I had no clue—or self-aware—of how my actions affected others, both positive and negative. It wasn't until much later when people would quote me as if it was a good thing. Why would anyone listen to me? Was my first thought. Later I had a wake up call that led me to a lot of searching within to understand self-worth and my future looked dim. It took a lot of changes on my part to finally obtain self-worth. I've been a chambermaid for almost ten years now. I have a feeling she will outlive me, and that is a worry I keep in the back of my mind.
Hmm ... interesting ... relating self-worth to self-awareness. So, seeing yourself clearly and objectively, and accepting yourself just as you are?
I would beg to differ. Child soldiers especially learn to suppress such urges. If we agree that 'morality', however it's defined, is taught by priests / rabbis / imams / whatever religious person you choose to name, then it's clear that not all religious people teach such values. (Indeed, some inculcate impressionable children with much worse values). This isn't a problem unique to the late 20th and early 21st centuries, either. For millennia, Catholic (and other) priests taught about Jesus's humility, gentleness and goodness, but the Gospel of Matthew speaks of Jesus saying: "I come not to bring peace but the sword" (Matt. 10:34) ... and centuries of Christians chose to take that instruction literally. Maybe the world would've been a better place if they hadn't. Probably not. Who am I to judge? Self-interest, of course. "I want what you have, but it doesn't belong to me. I know! I'll write a law!" Take the Magna Carta, for instance. For a century or more it's been hailed as the cornerstone of English law and freedom, but when you actually look at it, you quickly find that it means freedom for the barons -- freedom for them to fish and hunt where they liked, to hold the king to account if he didn't conform to their ideas of a "good king", etc. There's no word in it about freedom for anyone else -- artisans, guildsmen, yeomen, and certainly not women or villeins. (You're saying I can't tax my villeins into penury and force them to work my land 'til they die of exhaustion? It's the thin end of the wedge! Where would it end?!) So, the law can be anything that the person who writes the law says it is. This is one reason why the film Blazing Saddles is so funny. In one hilarious scene, the villains want to take the land that the town of Rockridge is built on, but it doesn't belong to them. So they look it up in legal books. By the way, US vs. Haley is a real case (1962) about land use rules, and it went all the way up to SCOTUS. The scriptwriters clearly did their homework, which makes it even funnier.
