Morality

[Gertrude]

Without religion, (as flawed as it is), what else is there in terms of institutions to teach a concept of morality to prevent, (as much as they can be), acts such as this? Parents by themselves in our modern urban world don't have the authority or depth of history to inculcate a sense of morality and justice? If parents aren't able to do such a thing, do we just have loose cannons like these two turning up?

Why should we need institutions to teach morality? Is morality really something to be taught?

I believe children that are sourrounded by adults who are themselves good examples to follow will for the most part pick up on it. I don't think you can "inculcate a sense of morality". You can lead by example and treat children the way you wish them to treat others as adults.

(No studies to support, though... just personnal experience)

 

[CapelDodger]

Why should we need institutions to teach morality? Is morality really something to be taught?

I believe children that are sourrounded by adults who are themselves good examples to follow will for the most part pick up on it. I don't think you can "inculcate a sense of morality". You can lead by example and treat children the way you wish them to treat others as adults.

(No studies to support, though... just personnal experience)

I too have no qualifications to declare but my humanity. I agree with you but I would put it a little differently. Children will pick up on what adults find admirable. We all aspire to admiration because it comes with the species. As does the dread of rejection.

It's the admiration that defines the "good example". Not every social groups's concept of a "good example" is the same as ours.

I'm child-free myself, but I have found that the most impressive thing you can say to an ankle-biter getting out of line is "We don't do that". With authority and timbre and that ten-times-your-size effect. They tend to go off into a long ponder - after all, they're new at this game. Low admiration, high rejection. Just watch them bend to your will ...

Then they take it out on their parents when they get back home, but is that my problem? I think not.

 

[Gertrude]

I too have no qualifications to declare but my humanity. I agree with you but I would put it a little differently. Children will pick up on what adults find admirable. We all aspire to admiration because it comes with the species. As does the dread of rejection.

It's the admiration that defines the "good example". Not every social groups's concept of a "good example" is the same as ours.

I'm child-free myself, but I have found that the most impressive thing you can say to an ankle-biter getting out of line is "We don't do that". With authority and timbre and that ten-times-your-size effect. They tend to go off into a long ponder - after all, they're new at this game. Low admiration, high rejection. Just watch them bend to your will ...

Then they take it out on their parents when they get back home, but is that my problem? I think not.

Agreed. We tend to imitate those that we admire. But a strong respect must precede. And unfortunately, it is not an easy task to gain the respect of those who were never surrounded by respectable people. In my opinion, no amount of rational discussion will equate the example set by a right, honest, respectful person who can listen to others. Unfortunately, it appears to be a rare race 'round here.

And all over, you have parents saying they "inculcate moral values" to their children. But sir, what do YOU do as an example of moral rectitude? Often, not much...

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I think we're forgetting about the role of genetics here. Genetically humans have a lot of their behavior already uploaded into their genomes. Humans are social animals and thus have evolved numerous traits for existing inside of a society including Reciprocal altruism and Non-reciprocal altruism.

 

[dglas]

I have never encountered a thoroughly successful systemic approach to morality, and certainly there have been a great many attempts to develop them. From realist appeals to moral sources, descriptivism, prescriptivism, emotivism, psychological necessity, down to deontic logics, almost all of them fail to capture one or more critical aspects of morality while almost all of them seem to capture some aspect or another. Even moral relativists usually speak of moralities as being objective within a particular setting.

In my tentative view, what is most often the failure is the desire to impose objectivity in moral codes wthout considering how "universalizability" works in the real world. Universalizability is the idea that rules, in this case moral ones, appy to all equally. Theorists often attempt to incorporate (i.e. presciptively enforce) "universalizability" in either the structure or the particular content (usually both) of this or that understanding of morality. I think this is where a primary error lies. It is the unthinking drive for Truth in morality. I suspect that trying to capture Truth in morality is about as reasonable an enterprise as claiming certainty in knowledge - which is to say, not at all. (Go figure; I'm a skeptic, right?)

I suspect it is simply enough to permit for the possibility of universalizability without requiring it. Therefore, I suspect that morality really has more to do with what I like to call realms of reasonable expectations, with "realms" and "reasonable" being defined via constant negotiation. This idea is a work in progress - I'm trying to take a step forward by taking a step back. It seems to me that, like our other social contructions, morality is what we agree to think it is.

Now this provides me with an answer to anyone who asks for the source of my morality. "I derive it from the reasonable expectations of myself and those around me." How interesting this answer is an open question...

I approach the role of genetics with a degree of wariness. While there well may be something interesting to consider there, I question whether it might turn out to be another quest for absolute Truth in morality, but based on biology this time. I suspect it is the enterprise itself that is in error. Biology (genetics) may suggest tendencies, but to refer to them as morals is, I think, a misunderstanding of what morality is and how it works. But, of course, it's another idea to bring to the negotiating table.

Reflecting back on the original post, I entertain the idea that parents, in fact, do have the abilty to reinforce morality in children by teaching them the importance of respect for the reasonable expectations of others. If that primary understanding is developed, the rest, it seems to me, follows...

 

[a_unique_person]

Why should we need institutions to teach morality? Is morality really something to be taught?

I believe children that are sourrounded by adults who are themselves good examples to follow will for the most part pick up on it. I don't think you can "inculcate a sense of morality". You can lead by example and treat children the way you wish them to treat others as adults.

(No studies to support, though... just personnal experience)

Pretty well everything we learn is taught, if not directly and methodically, it is absorbed from our culture and family.

Why not have a formal education on the matter as well as an informal one. Not a wrote, by the book experience, but at least one that raises the basic issues and how to find out how to answer them. These girls seem to have missed out on the most basic "Don't Kill" and "When caught, you will be sent to prison" ideas somehow. Even if you are a sociopath, you can at least be reasoned with to a certain degree.

 

[Gertrude]

Pretty well everything we learn is taught, if not directly and methodically, it is absorbed from our culture and family.

Why not have a formal education on the matter as well as an informal one. Not a wrote, by the book experience, but at least one that raises the basic issues and how to find out how to answer them. These girls seem to have missed out on the most basic "Don't Kill" and "When caught, you will be sent to prison" ideas somehow. Even if you are a sociopath, you can at least be reasoned with to a certain degree.

You are right that a lot of what we learn is taught... often inadvertantly. But I do question the value of a formal education on a topic such as morality. It already takes a predisposition to rely on rationality, and not impulsion, when facing a moral issue.

Morality is not just a set of rights and wrongs. I believe it is in great part a matter of respect towards the other. Or at least, a matter of acknowledgment of the other as a person. And unfortunately, this cannot be taught formally. You have to be respected before you can respect. Telling a kid that he must respect others for that and that reason will do nothing if he has been treated like c**p all his life.

What makes you say that a sociopath can be reasoned? I would think quite the opposite.

 

[Piggy]

Why not have a formal education on the matter as well as an informal one. Not a rote, by the book experience, but at least one that raises the basic issues and how to find out how to answer them.

I have to return to the question: To whom will you give the authority to determine the curriculum and materials, to guide the discussion? And what happens as power shifts, and new groups move into those positions?

There is no guarantee that, once started, such a program would retain its original character or purpose.

Shaping the moral views of young people is a tempting a prize. Those who are likely to want to sieze it, and control it, and not let it go... are the last people we should want to have it.

 

[Piggy]

What makes you say that a sociopath can be reasoned? I would think quite the opposite.

I'm a sociopath, and I'm perfectly reasonable. In fact, I'm so reasonable that I have no morals at all.

I observe codes of conduct, and ethics. But morals? Nope.

Most folks think of sociopaths as Ted Bundy. But there are successful sociopaths out there -- people with profound social pathologies, like me, who simply cannot form the kinds of relationships "normal" people do, and who don't even understand them.

I live alone and can't imagine having someone else in my home. I have never once wanted a family, and don't understand why people do. I have no desire to date (though I get asked) and my few friends are all people who have known me since childhood and accept me. I don't intuit body language or social cues very well at all, and have had to learn how to do so consciously, and arrange my life so as to minimize the need to do so at all.

Of course, I still have a human body and brain. I feel fear, excitement, sometimes happiness tho not much but I don't really feel a desire for that. Love in some ways, I suppose, but from what I can tell not in many of the ways others do.

I have no use for morals (and trust me, I've proven that many times, but have been lucky enough to survive with my freedom) but I have the sense to understand consequences, and what needs to be done, so I'm a productive member of society now.

It can happen.

 

[Gertrude]

I'm a sociopath, and I'm perfectly reasonable. In fact, I'm so reasonable that I have no morals at all.

I observe codes of conduct, and ethics. But morals? Nope.

Most folks think of sociopaths as Ted Bundy. But there are successful sociopaths out there -- people with profound social pathologies, like me, who simply cannot form the kinds of relationships "normal" people do, and who don't even understand them.

I live alone and can't imagine having someone else in my home. I have never once wanted a family, and don't understand why people do. I have no desire to date (though I get asked) and my few friends are all people who have known me since childhood and accept me. I don't intuit body language or social cues very well at all, and have had to learn how to do so consciously, and arrange my life so as to minimize the need to do so at all.

Of course, I still have a human body and brain. I feel fear, excitement, sometimes happiness tho not much but I don't really feel a desire for that. Love in some ways, I suppose, but from what I can tell not in many of the ways others do.

I have no use for morals (and trust me, I've proven that many times, but have been lucky enough to survive with my freedom) but I have the sense to understand consequences, and what needs to be done, so I'm a productive member of society now.

It can happen.

Hear you. If I understand, the only thing that motivates you to observe society's code of conduct is the idea of the consequences, right? In this sense, don't you agree that no amount of rationalization will give you a sense of morality? Because the idea that I oppose to is not to inform people of the rules and consequences. What I think is useless is to "teach" morals rationally.

 

[Piggy]

Hear you. If I understand, the only thing that motivates you to observe society's code of conduct is the idea of the consequences, right? In this sense, don't you agree that no amount of rationalization will give you a sense of morality? Because the idea that I oppose to is not to inform people of the rules and consequences. What I think is useless is to "teach" morals rationally.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. I just happen to have a calm personality, most of the time, and learned to deal with isolation and ostracism. Best thing I ever did was stop trying to pretend to be normal, stop believing that everyone had to be sociable, and say to hell with it, I'm a loner.

But other folks with social pathologies who are more prone to anger, especially young males who feel humiliated by rejection, well, they can turn into really violent people. Others get depressed and kill themselves, or never figure out how to deal with others' ways and end up on the streets, or learn all too well how to manipulate people and become criminals, especially con artists.

So yeah, for us, the best we can do is get our minds around the consequences as early as possible and make choices about how we want our lives to turn out. Teaching morality... you'll just get clowned.

Now, you want to see a hardcore sociopath playing the morality game to manipulate others, just catch up with our old pal David "Son of Sam" Berkowitz these days.

 

[a_unique_person]

I seem to have missed something. Morals != Ethics?

 

[skeptifem]

I think empathy is the key to morality. I dont know if empathy can be taught, but if it can I think it would benefit society greatly. You dont even need to have someone develop a moral system to teach specifically if you can teach someone to have empathy. It might not make someone perfectly moral but it will surely deter people from doing absolutely horrible things like murder. thats my opinion anyway.

 

[Piggy]

I seem to have missed something. Morals != Ethics?

That's the way I use the terms. Of course, I don't decide what words mean for everybody. I just have to find a way of making a distinction.

What I mean by "ethics" is a code of conduct based on outcomes. Why not steal? Because you can land in jail, people won't trust you, studies show it contributes to an environment where you yourself are more likely to be victimized or your neighborhood go downhill, etc. etc. etc.

What I mean by "morals" is an internal feeling for what is inherently right/wrong, good/bad. One does not steal, because it is a sin, or because it makes one a bad person, or because "my family is not that kind of family", or because one has a pang about it... "I would feel bad if I did that".

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Whose morals? Whose system? Whose teachers?

In order to establish a "systematic teaching of morals", someone must be empowered to decide what the morals should be and who is authorized as a teacher.

The church has always claimed authority, in the name of God/the creator, it just do it "perfectly." They set their standards too high, and failed to meet them perfectly. Still, they got some of it right.

Once you empower a group as teachers of morality, you risk their inevitable abuse of that power.

We take the risk with governments.

What happens when the corrupting influence of such power becomes too great a temptation, or attracts the merely power-hungry, and the office inevitably becomes a vehicle for indoctrination and control?

Like governments.

What happens when a new group, with its own self-serving ideas of morality, comes to control the helm?

Like every four years.

Who will stop them? Who can stop them, if they are the determiners of what is right and what is wrong?

We have too.

In reality, this is an impossibility. No matter who is set up as the teacher of morality, no matter whose system is chosen as the standard, the biological and physical fact is that it is still up to each of us, in our own minds, to accept or reject what is taught.

Like obeying laws?

No matter what standard is adopted, it is still the individual who decides, yes, this is right, or no, this is wrong, no matter what the authorities say.

And the law is clear... or, its being worked on to make itself better understood.