A Rational Definition of Morality

[athon]

The only way to view morality is in the context of a hierarchy of values.

Everybody has objects, objectives, ideals, relationships, situations etc. that they value. Some are simple, some are complex. Many of these will conflict in certain situations. For example, you value the physical sensation of sex. You might also value the respect of a loved one, and your sense of committment to them. A situation arises which causes a conflict in values, such as the opportunity to cheat - it comes down to the hierarchy. Which value is higher up the ladder at that time? If it is sexual pleasure, then you will probably cheat. Later, when the context is different (you're no longer presented with the sexual pleasure), the values are different and you'll feel guilt.

Morality is therefore a broad set of rules which you inherit from your social group (friends, family, community) which allows you to predict the behaviour of others - and yourself - regarding given values and situations where conflict arises.

As far as that goes, it is an evolved behaviour. It saves energy and potential friction between members of a social group if they can anticipate the behaviour and values of others in their group and can also anticipate one's own future situation.

Can it be rationalised?

It depends on what you mean by that. You can rationally determine how others will react. For instance, if I sleep with my neighbour's wife, I can rationalise her husband would be rather irate if he found out. That's a no brainer. Can I rationalise how I will feel after? If I'm honest with myself, probably. I might feel guilt if I was raised with the value that such an act is inherently wrong, for instance.

Morality itself cannot be an objective, universal set of established behaviours, as values differ between social groups and communities. We might be hard pressed to find a community which doesn't view unconditional murder as immoral, but that does not make that moral objective, but rather the value is one that is fairly intrinsic to any human's social group.

Viewing morality without considering the personal values from which they extol is fairly useless, and gives you only part of the whole picture.

Athon

 

[RandFan]

I'll not digress into the idea of wage slavery at the moment, as its too much of a derail, but my take on the societal response to the industrial revolution is that wage slavery was one of the features of early industrial society that Marx found objectionable, and worthy of a reaction.

His solution, to say the least, hardly cured the symptom he was trying to treat.

I think this deserves to be addressed. Just because we have not as yet resolved a number of issues doesn't mean that we won't. A system might evolve that is far more just than capitalism or communism. I don't believe that there is a utopia out there. There will always be disparities but we can, IMO, do better than we are doing now. Sorry for the platitude. I can't think of a better way to say it at the moment.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Better according to whom? Again, it's entirely subjective. Is it better to execute "bad" people via capital punishment, or let them live? "Better" is in the eye of the beholder.

Do you mean "objective," or do you mean "better" in your eyes? Please explain which moral ideas/systems/whatever, if any, are "objective." It seems to me it's all subjective, we all just make up what we believe to be right and wrong, based on many factors--religion, the views of our peers and family members, when and where we live, etc.

I'll give some examples of subjective measures that would be "objectively" wrong. A particular society has a moral code that dictates that they must sacrifice ten thousands virgins on the spring equinox because it benefits the society as a whole by increasing fertility. They carry out the bloody ritual and experience bumper crops. Subjectively -- in their eyes -- the ritual was of real benefit but objectively it did nothing of the sort.

In a society where the "eye for an eye" is put to use it is believed that this morality is of great benefit because it deters violence. But if someone were to actually statistically compare the society's crime rate with that of its' neighbors who didn't practice the same moral system then their subjective perception would be objectively wrong.

 

[jimtron]

I'll give some examples of subjective measures that would be "objectively" wrong. A particular society has a moral code that dictates that they must sacrifice ten thousands virgins on the spring equinox because it benefits the society as a whole by increasing fertility. They carry out the bloody ritual and experience bumper crops. Subjectively -- in their eyes -- the ritual was of real benefit but objectively it did nothing of the sort.

In a society where the "eye for an eye" is put to use it is believed that this morality is of great benefit because it deters violence. But if someone were to actually statistically compare the society's crime rate with that of its' neighbors who didn't practice the same moral system then their subjective perception would be objectively wrong.

j

It's still subjective, because even someone who believes that sacrificing virgins will lead to crop fertility might say that it's wrong to kill humans to in increase crop growth. I'm still not seeing the objective morality you speak of.
'
ETA: Objectivity comes in when one asks, is it true in the real, natural world, that sacrificing virgins will lead to agricultural fertility? The answer likely is no. But the moral dilemma is still subjective. If it's true that sacrificing does not lead to crop growth, and you could convince everyone of that, then there would be no reason to kill virgins (no arguably moral reason anyway). If killing virgins does lead to crop growth, then you have to make the subjective moral decision of whether it's acceptable or not to kill virgins for crop growth (which may be for the greater good).

 

[AkuManiMani]

j

It's still subjective, because even someone who believes that sacrificing virgins will lead to crop fertility might say that it's wrong to kill humans to in increase crop growth. I'm still not seeing the objective morality you speak of.

I'm not saying that the morality itself is objective. What I'm saying is that many of the alleged benefits of a moral system may be objectively measured. A person ultimately chooses a subjective moral system but at the end of the day the system still has objective consequences. The consequences can be detrimental while the individual that follows it still subjectively holds the view that its beneficial to the same parties it harms, and vis versa.

 

[jimtron]

What I'm saying is that many of the alleged benefits of a moral system may be objectively measured.

I agree that some benefits of a moral system can be objectively measured. What I disagree with (I think, unless I'm misunderstanding you) is what you said in post #17:

While morality is heavily subjective I would say that some systems of morality have more objective value than others -- i.e they leave fewer dead/miserable people if followed.

Which "systems of morality" have "more objective value"?

 

[RandFan]

Jimtron,

Could you give us a scenario whereby a modern liberal democracy would move in a direction that you and I might consider "worse" than they are today without demagoguery or a strong central government? I assume you think slavery, oppression and the sacrifice of virgins bad.

What arguments would reasonable people accept to give up their freedom or be willing to allow for the loss of freedom of others that don't involve fear or control of some dogmatic authority?

My point is that I don't think reasonable people, given the opportunity to think for themselves, would ever start sacrificing virgins because we've evolved as a society and we know that such schemes don't work. So long as there is no one telling us that if we don't sacrifice virgins then Al Qaeda will invade then that's just not going to happen.

We can objectively look at the past and determine which codes of conduct were better for society and which were not.

 

[jimtron]

Could you give us a scenario whereby a modern liberal democracy would move in a direction that you and I might consider "worse" than they are today without demagoguery or a strong central government?

I can't think of a specific scenario that I necessarily think is plausible or likely. But I've never claimed that any modern liberal democracy is likely to get worse etc.

I assume you think slavery, oppression and the sacrifice of virgins bad.

Yes! (Well, it's OK to sacrifice virgins on Wednesdays).

We can objectively look at the past and determine which codes of conduct were better for society and which were not.

Most of us would probably agree on some of the more obvious stuff. But I still stand by my basic point which is that morality is in the eye of the beholder--there's nothing objective about it. I understand that it might be in our interest as a species to get along, but we still can't all agree on social justice and other moral dilemmas. There are pacifists and there are politicians who believe it's OK to torture under some circumstances. There are contentious areas like abortion and capital punishment and fairness of economic systems.

And regarding your point about how if we get away from dogma, we'll agree more on morality--one problem is, we're not getting away from dogma. I don't know if religion is waxing or waning, but it sure doesn't look like it's going away anytime soon, especially with our recent (arguably) "holy war" between Bush and Bin Laden.

 

[athon]

Which "systems of morality" have "more objective value"?

I find there is a tendency for a lot of people to apply a qualifier to what constitutes 'good' morality, usually being 'allows a community to proliferate' or 'improves a standard of living for all equally' or 'increases the overall wealth of a community' etc.

I've got no problem with people assessing different morality codes if they are explicit in what they are using to compare them. However, it again assumes the communities share those values. For example, not all communities feel that all people who coexist within a given geographical region belong to their community. Additionally, not all of those communities feel that all individuals within that region have an equal right to a high quality of life. Those values mean some communities within a nation will be quite happy seeing that they have relatively high amounts of wealth and quality of life over others. This is of greater value to them than everybody within the wider community having a high quality of life.

Moral systems can be compared objectively only when a qualifier is explicitly defined. However, care has to be taken to then not further comment on whether a system is objectively better simply because one applies their own personal value of 'greater chance of survival' or 'more wealth' on top of it.

Athon

 

[RandFan]

I can't think of a specific scenario that I necessarily think is plausible or likely. But I've never claimed that any modern liberal democracy is likely to get worse etc.

Yes! (Well, it's OK to sacrifice virgins on Wednesdays).

Most of us would probably agree on some of the more obvious stuff. But I still stand by my basic point which is that morality is in the eye of the beholder--there's nothing objective about it. I understand that it might be in our interest as a species to get along, but we still can't all agree on social justice and other moral dilemmas. There are pacifists and there are politicians who believe it's OK to torture under some circumstances. There are contentious areas like abortion and capital punishment and fairness of economic systems.

And regarding your point about how if we get away from dogma, we'll agree more on morality--one problem is, we're not getting away from dogma. I don't know if religion is waxing or waning, but it sure doesn't look like it's going away anytime soon, especially with our recent (arguably) "holy war" between Bush and Bin Laden.

Good post. I really don't think that we are that far apart in our positions. I think in the short term dogmatic belief is on the increase but that the overall trend is good. We'll see.

 

[jimtron]

I find there is a tendency for a lot of people to apply a qualifier to what constitutes 'good' morality, usually being 'allows a community to proliferate' or 'improves a standard of living for all equally' or 'increases the overall wealth of a community' etc.

One major problem though, is that we can't agree on what "allows a community to proliferate." And as far as "improving standard of living for all equally;" that's a very contentious position. I'm a lefty, and tend to be in favor of working for the common good; however, there are many on the right, as well as libertarians, who are not so much inclined that way--they might favor the idea that individuals should take care of themselves. (I see you touch on this a bit in your next paragraph.)

I think in the short term dogmatic belief is on the increase but that the overall trend is good. We'll see.

I hope we're going in a better direction, but I'm not so sure. In some ways it seems to me Americans are getting more selfish and short-sighted.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Which "systems of morality" have "more objective value"?

The easter islanders utilized an ethical system that led to not only the complete ecological destruction of the island that they inhabited but the collapse of their society in a relatively short span of time. Their own internal dynamics were their own undoing. The Inuit on the other hand survived in their own harsh environment for thousands of years. Their internal cultural dynamics were not as maladaptive as that of the E.Islanders; therefore, their system had more objective benefit [I suppose one could use the term "utility" as well].

 

[Radrook]

Ethically, our moral obligations or duties stem from our common human condtition

1. Mortality
2. Ability to suffer both psycological and physical pain
3. Our ability to reason
4. Our need for social cooperation in order to enhance survival.

 

[rocketdodger]

But I still stand by my basic point which is that morality is in the eye of the beholder--there's nothing objective about it. I understand that it might be in our interest as a species to get along, but we still can't all agree on social justice and other moral dilemmas.

You can certainly objectively measure how well an adopted morality serves the desires of those who adopted (or were forced to adopt) it.

 

[rocketdodger]

Ethically, our moral obligations or duties stem from our common human condtition

1. Mortality
2. Ability to suffer both psycological and physical pain
3. Our ability to reason
4. Our need for social cooperation in order to enhance survival.

...where is god in there? Have you finally realized that god doesn't add anything to the mix when it comes to the formation of morality?

 

[Radrook]

...where is god in there? Have you finally realized that god doesn't add anything to the mix when it comes to the formation of morality?

Our morality stems from our humanity and our humanity stems from God.

BTW
Of course that deviates the subject. But since you asked....

 

[RandFan]

Our morality stems from our humanity and our humanity stems from God.

Sure.

I remember the humanity of god killing babies and infants in the flood. God killing babies and infants in Egypt (the last plague). The humanity of god killing Uzzah because he reached out to steady the Ark of the covenant.

The list goes on and on and on.

I would say you have it backwards, god gets his inhumanity from humans. He was created in our image so it only makes sense that the greatest mass murder in all of literature is god.

 

[Radrook]

Sure.

I remember the humanity of God killing babies and infants in the flood.

Oh you mean their being included in the cleansing of the earth in order to give mankind a clean start? God considered that necessary. Actually, a lot of those babies-if not all, were hybrids-or as they say in Spanish, abortions of nature.

Genesis 6:4

There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

God killing babies and infants in Egypt (the last plague).

Needed in order for the Egyptians to take him seriously.


Exodus 5:2
And Pharaoh said, “Who is the LORD, that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, nor will I let Israel go.”

In any case, they will be resurrected into a better world for the chance at a better life. Maybe they were far better off not experiencing growing up under those societies and were spared the agonies involved. Actually, if given the choice-I would have opted for the death and resurrection option myself. I think many other people given that option would also jump at the opportunity instead of spending a lifetime of misery in this place.


Mark 10:13

[ Jesus Blesses Little Children ] Then they brought little children to Him, that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked those who brought them.
14. But when Jesus saw it, He was greatly displeased and said to them, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God

[THe humanity of God killing Uzzah because he reached out to steady the Ark of the covenant. The list goes on and on and on.

That's what happens when one forgets to be careful. The only ones authorized to touch the ark were the Levites.

1 Chronicles 15:2
Then David said, “No one may carry the ark of God but the Levites, for the LORD has chosen them to carry the ark of God and to minister before Him forever.”

Numbers 8:19
And I have given the Levites as a gift to Aaron and his sons from among the children of Israel, to do the work for the children of Israel in the tabernacle of meeting, and to make atonement for the children of Israel, that there be no plague among the children of Israel when the children of Israel come near the sanctuary.”

Any Israelite ignoring that was acting presumptuously. Since God can read hearts and innermost thoughts, he must have ehad a good reason for what he did.

Luke 16:15
And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts.


That applies to all the adults you mention were executed.

As for babies and infants, they are the responsibility y of their parents. Actually, babies are spoken of as a gift from God. But that gift carries responsibility. The responsibility to raise that baby up in a decent manner and in a secure household. If indeed I endanger my household by directly opposing God-then the one responsible for the death of my family is me-not God.

You are requiring God to say. OK, don't worry-sin all you want. I'll take care of your kids for you. But God's justice doesn't work that way. Your kids? Your responsibility. Actually, if we don't know how to bring up a child in a decent way then we don't deserve that gift.

say you have it backwards, God gets his inhumanity from humans. He was created in our image so it only makes sense that the greatest mass murder in all of literature is God.

Oh! You mean the man created God argument? So they teach and so they believe and so it might be for all other religions. But not for the true religion passed down from Adam all the way to Jesus. That's the Christian viewpoint.


BTW

By humanity I meant the qualities which make us uniquely human, not the irrelevant-to-the subject traits you are mentioning.

 

[RandFan]

Oh you mean their being included in the cleansing of the earth in order to give mankind a clean start? God considered that necessary. Actually, a lot of those babies-if not all, were hybrids-or as they say in Spanish, abortions of nature.

Oh, well, sure then. Drown babies and make them suffer.

Needed in order for the Egyptians to take him seriously.

Oh please, an omnipotent god could snap his finger and the Israelites would have been free.

In any case, they will be resurrected into a better world for the chance at a better life.

That's right and that is perfect justification for genocide and murder in general. Thanks for that.

That's what happens when one forgets to be careful. The only ones authorized to touch the ark were the Levites.

More justification for brutality. A perfectly just being punishes someone by killing them. Is it no wonder mankind has been killing each other since the dawn of their existence. One can always justify anything... including murder. Thanks for the demonstration.

Why the hell do we think Muslims are flying planes into buildings? Because the religious have been justifying brutality and murder since there was religion. When god is on your side you can kill anything including women and children. Nice, isn't it?

As for babies and infants, they are the responsibility y of their parents. Actually, babies are spoken of as a gift from God.

More justification for torturing babies.

You are requiring God to say. OK, don't worry-sin all you want. I'll take care of your kids for you.

It's all silly nonsense but given your premise, no, an all powerful being could have snapped his fingers and the babies would have vaporized without suffering.

So they teach and so they believe and so it might be for all other religions.

No other religion I know of teaches it.

By humanity I meant the qualities which make us uniquely human, not the irrelevant-to-the subject traits you are mentioning.

How are they irrelevant to the subject?

 

[Radrook]

Oh, well, sure then. Drown babies and make them suffer.

And you know for a certainty they suffered?

Oh please, an omnipotent God could snap his finger and the Israelites would have been free.

But he chose to provide a prophetic drama instead.

That's right and that is perfect justification for genocide and murder in general. Thanks for that.

Impossible since no one has a right to be living-including you.

More justification for brutality. A perfectly just being punishes someone by killing them. Is it no wonder mankind has been killing each other since the dawn of their existence. One can always justify anything ... including murder. Thanks for the demonstration.

Again you assume that you are entitled to life. You are actually living as a gesture of his mercy.

Why the hell do we think Muslims are flying planes into buildings? Because the religious have been justifying brutality and murder since there was religion. When God is on your side you can kill anything including women and children. Nice, isn't it?

That has NOTHING to do with my God.

More justification for torturing babies.

That's what YOU choose to imagine they felt because it suits your satanic purposes.

It's all silly nonsense....

If it's all nonsense-then why give it your time of day? After all, my response to the remark was very brief in order to keep the thread on track. I had not insisted on the person agreeing with my viewpoint. Actually, I never do since everyone is entitled to think whatever it is he chooses to. So if indeed it was all nonsense to you from the outset-then why deviate the thread by feigning otherwise? All it amounts to is a waste of time since you will definitely never convince me of your ideas-which I consider to be drivel and neither will I convince you of mine. Get the point?

....but given your premise, no, an all powerful being could have snapped his fingers and the babies would have vaporized without suffering....

But he chose another way for various good reasons.

No other religion I know of teaches it.

But their not teaching it doesn't stop you from being an atheist now does it?

[How are they irrelevant to the subject?

Because the subject is not about religion or God.

BTW