Morality

[Piggy]

Moral systems are designed to produce societies in which the largest majority of the individuals within those societies can peacefully coexist.

Really? I thought they were designed to keep powerful people in power.

The key word here is "designed".

Biologically, as a social species, we do find moral principles which pervade human culture that tend to help preserve the social group: Don't steal what is recognized as other folks' stuff, don't kill people just because you want to, don't intentionally harm others for merely selfish reasons, don't produce offspring with near kin, etc. (All within the tribe, of course -- outlanders, well, they got it coming.)

But beyond these basics, there's a plethora of highly variable "moral" principles instituted largely to maintain the political/social status quo: Don't worship the wrong god, don't reproduce with someone from another social group, don't express doubts about the opinions of religious or political leaders, don't eat the way foreigners do, and so forth.

A very enlightening exercise is to tease apart the various layers of God's commandments in Exodus, for example. They change radically from the most ancient passages from the nomadic times, to the most recent passages from settled society dominated by a separate and priveleged priestly caste.

The very oldest passages are primitive and brutal -- sacrifice your first born animals, harvests, and sons; make altars only from dirt and unhewn stone (and no steps!); that kind of thing -- while the latest passages describe a God who demands a temple that sounds like it was decorated by Liberace, who is fussier than a 4 year old when it comes to what people should eat and how it should be prepared, and on and on and on.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Systematic teaching of morals is not the same as a system of morals to teach.

Yes, morals should be taught systematically just like math, language and science.

They sure should, that way no one could claim (or pretend) not to know better. Right now, we just assume they "should know better."

 

[Piggy]

They sure should, that way no one could claim (or pretend) not to know better. Right now, we just assume they "should know better."

What if the people teaching the system are the Taliban? Or the Khmer Rouge?

Then perhaps freeminded persons do, in fact, know better.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I believe that's considered pre-conventional morality--the sort that normal children grow beyond.

Well I didn't know what kind it was, but I know some adults that act in accordance with what their religion says because of the reward, and the punishment.

In other words, behavior motivated solely by seeking rewards and avoiding punishment isn't based on morality.

I didn't say solely, the reward and punishment provides that extra kick. "God is watching you."

 

[a_unique_person]

That's an easy one.

No.

Without exception, every attempt to create a "system of morals" has resulted in abuse and immorality, because the question of human morality is too complex to be reducible to a formal system. The proof is left as an exercise for the history section of your local library.

Absent an actual system of morals (as opposed to a collection of ad-hoc judgements), the idea of systematic instruction is impossible. You can't systematically instruct ad-hoc material.

Could we have one based on the scientific model? A sceptical, evidence based one with no wrote subservience to a mythical authority?

 

[Piggy]

Could we have one based on the scientific model? A sceptical, evidence based one with no wrote subservience to a mythical authority?

Compiled by whom? Taught by whom? Enforced by whom?

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

What if the people teaching the system are the Taliban? Or the Khmer Rouge?

Then perhaps freeminded persons do, in fact, know better.

Or the Nazis. The shame is, other freeminded people knew that they were wrong, and did nothing. The Vietnamese invasion stopped the Khmer Rouge, (though that might not have been the intent) and they got economic sanctions for it.

Fearing new teachers is what led me to suggest evolving the religions we already know.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I didn't say solely, the reward and punishment provides that extra kick. "God is watching you."

So what? A moral person doesn't behave because of fear of reward and punishment. That's my point.
Avoid punishment and seeking reward is just self-interest. When you grow up, you should get beyond that.

 

[athon]

Morality isn't ever 'designed'. It arises out of a shared system of values and beliefs. For instance, a shared value in limiting the suffering in individuals who you don't know personally. Or a shared value in making it easier for others in your community to succeed in achieving their goals. Nobody stands up and proclaims these values to be 'true'; they are things we are raised to embrace by observing the behaviour of those we love and respect, such as parents, siblings and role models.

Selecting morals to enforce requires a system of enforcement which is not necessarily linked with an individual's values. If I have no value in feeling that you should not have to feel physical pain, then enforcing a moral which defeats such behaviour is no different to enforcing a rule or law. It's no longer a moral but rather a social restraint enforced by a threat of punishment.

No, enforcing moral behaviour and expecting it to remain as a moral behaviour is nonsense. In other words, we can role model moral behaviour and even open a discourse on what we in society view as moralistic, but we cannot teach morals as we would any other rule.

Athon

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

So what? A moral person doesn't behave because of fear of reward and punishment. That's my point.

People have all sorts of reasons for why they do what they do, good, bad, and otherwise.

Avoid punishment and seeking reward is just self-interest.

So what? Self-interest is one of the base motivators of life. Avoiding pain, and seeking reward (in all their forms) is what life does.

When you grow up, you should get beyond that.

You should... but some of us never grow up, and who is to say what that is?

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Morality isn't ever 'designed'. It arises out of a shared system of values and beliefs. For instance, a shared value in limiting the suffering in individuals who you don't know personally. Or a shared value in making it easier for others in your community to succeed in achieving their goals. Nobody stands up and proclaims these values to be 'true'; they are things we are raised to embrace by observing the behaviour of those we love and respect, such as parents, siblings and role models.

Selecting morals to enforce requires a system of enforcement which is not necessarily linked with an individual's values. If I have no value in feeling that you should not have to feel physical pain, then enforcing a moral which defeats such behaviour is no different to enforcing a rule or law. It's no longer a moral but rather a social restraint enforced by a threat of punishment.

No, enforcing moral behaviour and expecting it to remain as a moral behaviour is nonsense. In other words, we can role model moral behaviour and even open a discourse on what we in society view as moralistic, but we cannot teach morals as we would any other rule.

That is a good start, there are some things that are enforced (loosely, I would grant) with a look.

 

[polkablues]

So what? Self-interest is one of the base motivators of life.

I would even suggest it's the primary motivator (perhaps even the only motivator), even in the construction of moral guidelines. For example, if it is accepted that killing is immoral, that serves each of our own self interests, because it will make us less likely to be killed ourselves. We decide that theft of property is immoral, and that reduces the risk of our own property being stolen.

 

[Wat Tyler]

Religion also had/have a role in threatening people to do right. They planted the idea of an invisible, all seeing, cop. "Do right and get this reward, do wrong, and you will be punished."

The fatal flaw in which model is that once anyone has worked out that it is a pile of steaming dung, then they know that they no longer have anything to fear in transgressing the behavioural commandments of the said religion.

A much sounder basis for morality is a teaching of the real-world consequences of not conforming to it - everyone in society is harmed, and so if you transgress you will be caught and punished.

Which can be illustrated by the teaching of history, and the use of reasoned argument.
There is no need to invoke anyone's imaginary Overlord.

 

[CapelDodger]

Really? I thought they were designed to keep powerful people in power.

The key word here is "designed".

The two - social stability and dynastic stability - are not incompatible. People will put up with privilege for a few if they get security in return.

Biologically, as a social species, we do find moral principles which pervade human culture that tend to help preserve the social group: Don't steal what is recognized as other folks' stuff, don't kill people just because you want to, don't intentionally harm others for merely selfish reasons, don't produce offspring with near kin, etc. (All within the tribe, of course -- outlanders, well, they got it coming.)

Well put.

I think there are two grades of innate human morality, one applying to the preceived in-group and the one that's swamped by innate xenophobia.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

The fatal flaw in which model is that once anyone has worked out that it is a pile of steaming dung, then they know that they no longer have anything to fear in transgressing the behavioural commandments of the said religion.

When I moved away from religion I still thought that some commandments made sense, so I continued to follow them. But, that only showed me that there was "something" there, and religion was trying to express it.

There is no need to invoke anyone's imaginary Overlord.

In the very deep past, there was a reason. It was the best they could come up at the time.

 

[Wat Tyler]

When I moved away from religion I still thought that some commandments made sense, so I continued to follow them. But, that only showed me that there was "something" there, and religion was trying to express it.

I'd suggest to you that your interpretation of the existence of a moral code 'proving' that 'something is there' is another subordination of your critical faculties to 'feelings' again - and you already know how I rate the ability of 'feelings' to provide an accurate basis for anything.

I'd also like to you note that, per the Bible, Abram (who later becomes Abraham) starts his life in the settled urban civilisation of the city-state of Ur- a 'pagan' Sumerian civilisation which pre-dates the monotheistic Semitic civilisations of the Jews and Arabs.

It would have been impossible for any civilisation to function without a moral/legal code, and yet the pagan Sumerians had a settled urban civilisation and the division of labour long before even the Ten Commandments were written down in Genesis, or Abram/Moses/Akhenaten/Zoroaster invented monotheism.

In the very deep past, there was a reason. It was the best they could come up at the time.

Oh, I agree with you on this bit - clearly, some justification for the moral code was needed at the time - and the threat of incurring the wrath of the God(s) is a very good (probably the best) 'stick' with which to beat a pre-literate society into submission, but...

...I assert that, as we are no-longer in the very deep past, or a pre-literate, Bronze Age, agrarian society, we should be able to move on to more effective/efficient models/bases for our societal rules/structures, and, furthermore;

that in our modern, literate, globally-connected, urbanised civilisation, to persuade people to 'behave themselves' we can use the 'carrot' of rational evidence of the benefits of adherence to our moral code and the 'stick' of the threat of detection and punishment in this life, rather than having to rely on the nonsensical threat of post-mortem supernatural punishment.

 

[a_unique_person]

The fatal flaw in which model is that once anyone has worked out that it is a pile of steaming dung, then they know that they no longer have anything to fear in transgressing the behavioural commandments of the said religion.

A much sounder basis for morality is a teaching of the real-world consequences of not conforming to it - everyone in society is harmed, and so if you transgress you will be caught and punished.

Which can be illustrated by the teaching of history, and the use of reasoned argument.
There is no need to invoke anyone's imaginary Overlord.

Which makes sense, but someone has to do it. Schools at the moment appear to have this role allocated to them by default.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I'd suggest to you that your interpretation of the existence of a moral code 'proving' that 'something is there' is another subordination of your critical faculties to 'feelings' again - and you already know how I rate the ability of 'feelings' to provide an accurate basis for anything.

They can tell you whether or not you like someone. They can even influence you to help someone you don't even know.

I'd also like to you note that, per the Bible, Abram (who later becomes Abraham) starts his life in the settled urban civilisation of the city-state of Ur- a 'pagan' Sumerian civilisation which pre-dates the monotheistic Semitic civilisations of the Jews and Arabs.

It would have been impossible for any civilisation to function without a moral/legal code, and yet the pagan Sumerians had a settled urban civilisation and the division of labour long before even the Ten Commandments were written down in Genesis, or Abram/Moses/Akhenaten/Zoroaster invented monotheism.

I am not talking about anything written in any book about what God said. I am talking about what people felt before they made up the concept of God, the stuff they follow even when they have no God.

...I assert that, as we are no-longer in the very deep past, or a pre-literate, Bronze Age, agrarian society, we should be able to move on to more effective/efficient models/bases for our societal rules/structures, and, furthermore;

I agree.

that in our modern, literate, globally-connected, urbanised civilisation, to persuade people to 'behave themselves' we can use the 'carrot' of rational evidence of the benefits of adherence to our moral code and the 'stick' of the threat of detection and punishment in this life, rather than having to rely on the nonsensical threat of post-mortem supernatural punishment.

Fine.

 

[Wat Tyler]

They can tell you whether or not you like someone. They can even influence you to help someone you don't even know.

Yes, they can - but that's just a bit different to providing a viable base for a whole society, isn't it?

I am not talking about anything written in any book about what God said. I am talking about what people felt before they made up the concept of God, the stuff they follow even when they have no God.

Ah, OK - but that (the beliefs of long-dead pre-literate people) is unknowable.

I agree.

Fine.

Cool.


Numpty that I am, I'd thought that you were arguing in favour of a return to 'that ole time Religion'.
D'oh!

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Yes, they can - but that's just a bit different to providing a viable base for a whole society, isn't it?

The respect for life, and how we feel about (and towards) each other is what society is based on.

Ah, OK - but that (the beliefs of long-dead pre-literate people) is unknowable.

I'm thinking that they felt (or had the precursors for it) like we do, before they knew what to think.

Numpty that I am, I'd thought that you were arguing in favour of a return to 'that ole time Religion'.
D'oh!

No, not me. I like all the freedoms (and technology) we have now that it has been subdued.