Morality is simply the ethical norms of one’s culture?
So if there’s a culture wherein babies are tortured for fun, this is to be considered morally acceptable? What about a culture wherein women are treated as slaves, or where homosexuals are only allowed to take on menial jobs?
I think there is an important difference between having a moral code which strictly forbids certain contextual behavior, and saying that all moral codes should have this element in their set of codes (or less formal rules). As a meta-ethic, I find that there is no requirement of a moral code, either in its members or in its structure.
I don’t believe that morals “come” from anywhere, and so any property of universiality that we find (baby torture=bad) is coincidental. but to add to this complete moral freedom, I think that natural selection does, in some way, act toward this, though not in the manner that morals are somehow genetically inhereted, but rather that since much of morality seems to come from societies, societies which have moral standards that act against their own citizens will wipe themselves out if they don’t change. Things like pedophilia, however, aren’t directly harmful to society, and also aren’t beneficial, so they aren’t selected for one way or another.
Just to toss a little “meme” theory in there (as weak as the whole “meme” thing is). 
But should there prove to be a fundamental moral set, we must ask what it is, and how we may distinguish it from abberant behavior.
Yet again, of course we all (I hope) think these are heinous practices. What I’m discussing is the thought that we may only feel these practices to be bad because of our culture. Do you have a point of view? (And please don’t mention being nasty to babies again - I think I saw you use it in another thread too).
Yet again, of course we all (I hope) think these are heinous practices. What I’m discussing is the thought that we may only feel these practices to be bad because of our culture. Do you have a point of view? (And please don’t mention being nasty to babies again - I think I saw you use it in another thread too).
If there are objective moral values, where do they come from and how are we to discover them? Can we discover them via some sort of experiment ( and if so, what form might this experiment take?) or would it be by reflecting on the nature of morality ( perhaps a consideration of the Platonic Ideal Form of morality)? If the latter, suppose that you and I both consider a moral problem and come to different conclusions. What other steps could we take to determine which of us was correct?
Do you believe in objective aesthetic values? If not, what is the difference between moral values and aesthetic values that means that one can be objective and the other not?
Hm…not to jump in, but I lean towards Kant’s categorical imperative; basically, that one does what one would like the rest of the world to do. A “do unto others” type of thing.
It makes sense, in that, if one were to do something “immoral” to us, we would be angry, but if we were to do the same immoral thing, we’d basically be saying that it were okay to do that to us…
Of course, there are holes in this (such as sadomachisism), but it seems to work ok otherwise.
I see. So it’s not necessarily bad to torture babies for fun? If you’re born in the right time and place, it should be considered an acceptable custom? Never mind what we “hope” people will think. I’m asking whether it is ever acceptable.
Y’know, a little over a century ago, there was a country wherein slavery was considered the cultural norm in many communities. Were these people justified in practicing slavery? After all, their culture deemed it to be acceptable.
Why not? After all, I’m not proposing that actually should torture infants. I’m just asking a question and soliciting responses.
Besides, what if my culture deems it perfectly acceptable to discuss being nasty to babies? Why should I stop bringing the subject up?
I believe that fundamental human morals do exist. A recent round-table discussion in my family centered on the question: Which came first, religion or morals? I started out all alone on the morals-first side and ended up converting everyone else - I doubt I’ll be so successful here.
Let us consider the wolf pack, for example. A pack often contains several fertile adult breeders, with all of the sexual instincts and drives intact. However, except in times of great plentitude, only the alpha male and female will mate and produce pups. The other pack members restrain their own sexual and reproductive instincts and instead cooperate in feeding, caring for, and training the pups of the alpha pair. Wolves have evolved so that this behavior is necessary to their survival - they function best in a social group, and certain rules are necessary in order to maintain that social group.
Aren’t these rules of behavior identical, in theory, to what you refer to as human morals?
Like wolves (and various other pack and herd animals), humans are a social species - they require some sort of social group in order to survive and reproduce successfully. Any social group must have rules of some sort in order to exist - otherwise the group falls apart and the individuals fail to thrive and reproduce. So fundamental human morals do exist - you are simply being too ‘modern’ in your thinking.
Although I’ve not given this any deep thought, a quickie guess at some fundamental human taboos would be (in no particular order) 1) murder (as opposed to killing - I’ll explain that if needed); 2) theft; 3) rape of someone else’s bonded mate; and 4) infanticide and/or euthanasia of the elderly, handicapped, etc. in times of ease and plenty. And bear in mind that these actions would only be taboo within that social group; the same actions performed against members of a rival social group would most likely not only be ‘legal’, they may even be encouraged, at least until some humans entertained the concepts of cooperation, treaties, trade, etc.
Incest was probably discouraged but not strictly forbidden, as an isolated tribe stricken by a fatal disease may have no other option for survival.
I think a cannibalism taboo would be dependent on what type of cannibalism you mean - ritualistic cannibalism involving the eating of selected body parts (such as the heart) of deceased, highly-respected tribe members or warriors/hunters of rival groups might have been quite common. However, cannibalism as a common food source would most likely be another case of ‘only in dire necessity’. It’s otherwise a little contrary to survival, don’t you think?
Genocide? Rival tribes probably fought frequently over prime ‘ease of survival’ territory, and ‘genocide’ undoubtedly occurred fairly often, as far as vanquishing a rival tribe was concerned. However, true genocide was probably rare; all of the males in a defeated tribe, from infant through elderly, would most likely be killed, but the females would be spared and incorporated into victorious tribe as slave labor and/or mates. Female infants may have been spared both as future mates and to both pacify and inhibit their mothers. But while the defeated tribe may have ceased to exist as a separate entity, its genes and some of its knowledge and tradition survived through the preserved female line.
And pedophilia - I’d say that probably depends on your definition of pedophilia. Sexual play with youngsters, even infants, that involved fondling and such may have been considered simple innocent fun, but sexual activity that could cause the injury or death of a very young child would almost certainly be forbidden. I doubt that pure pedophilia (primary sexual attraction to infants or obviously sexually immature children) was seen very often in early human development. Despite recent claims that pedophilia is simply a ‘sexual orientation’ like homosexuality, it is undoubtedly a serious personality disorder - pedophiles prefer children because they (pedophiles) are emotionally unable to form a satisfactory adult relationship. They can only feel safe in a relationship with someone so much smaller, weaker, and emotionally vulnerable than themselves that the victim presents no physical or emotional threat to the pedophile. Some pedophiles are also basically power-assertive rapists who enjoy the sexual domination of another human being but are too personally inadequate (cowardly) to assault an adult. The point of all of this rambling is that 1) the cultural and societal pressures that create pedophiles were probably pretty much non-existant throughout most of early human development; and 2) those with pedophilic tendencies would display other, more obvious and debilitating character traits that would most likely result, in one way or another, in their elimination from the social group at a fairly early stage.
Basically, what I’m trying to say is that a taboo would not exist before the concept and possibility of the action/behavior existed. For ‘fundamental, universal morals’ you need to go way back to very early human development and try to determine the most basic, elemental rules required for a group of humans to live together in a cooperative, mutually beneficial society.
This is just IMO, of course, although I can most likely dig up some references to support some of this. The rest of it is just pure speculation. 
JET, I’m going to have to call you on this one and ask for a cite. I don’t want to add a great deal to an already lengthy post, so I’ll just toss out a couple or three brief comments.
Cannibalism, by definition, is restricted to meat-eating animals - I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a single instance of a horse, cow, or sheep knowingly and deliberately eating another member of its species, or even one of another species! Herbivores are rather plentiful, while carnivores and omnivores are comparatively rare, so the ‘common’ occurence of cannibalism in the ‘animal kingdom’ is actually going to be restricted to a rather small, specific group. Cannibalism may be more common in the ‘animal kingdom’ than among humans, but that’s a different statement entirely, isn’t it?
Incest is extremely common in the ‘animal kingdom’! Do you have any idea at all of how, for example, herds of horses conduct their lives in a natural state? Have you ever so much as glanced at any information about animal breeding and encountered the term ‘inbreeding’? Honestly, I don’t mean to be rude, but this human misconception is so common and so laughable to anyone with much knowledge of animals that it is actually the butt of a rather old and stale veterinary joke!
You might want to reconsider that statement.
I believe that fundamental human morals do exist. A recent round-table discussion in my family centered on the question: Which came first, religion or morals? I started out all alone on the morals-first side and ended up converting everyone else - I doubt I’ll be so successful here.
Let us consider the wolf pack, for example. A pack often contains several fertile adult breeders, with all of the sexual instincts and drives intact. However, except in times of great plentitude, only the alpha male and female will mate and produce pups. The other pack members restrain their own sexual and reproductive instincts and instead cooperate in feeding, caring for, and training the pups of the alpha pair. Wolves have evolved so that this behavior is necessary to their survival - they function best in a social group, and certain rules are necessary in order to maintain that social group.
Aren’t these rules of behavior identical, in theory, to what you refer to as human morals?
Like wolves (and various other pack and herd animals), humans are a social species - they require some sort of social group in order to survive and reproduce successfully. Any social group must have rules of some sort in order to exist - otherwise the group falls apart and the individuals fail to thrive and reproduce. So fundamental human morals do exist - you are simply being too ‘modern’ in your thinking.
Although I’ve not given this any deep thought, a quickie guess at some fundamental human taboos would be (in no particular order) 1) murder (as opposed to killing - I’ll explain that if needed); 2) theft; 3) rape of someone else’s bonded mate; and 4) infanticide and/or euthanasia of the elderly, handicapped, etc. in times of ease and plenty. And bear in mind that these actions would only be taboo within that social group; the same actions performed against members of a rival social group would most likely not only be ‘legal’, they may even be encouraged, at least until some humans entertained the concepts of cooperation, treaties, trade, etc.
Incest was probably discouraged but not strictly forbidden, as an isolated tribe stricken by a fatal disease may have no other option for survival.
I think a cannibalism taboo would be dependent on what type of cannibalism you mean - ritualistic cannibalism involving the eating of selected body parts (such as the heart) of deceased, highly-respected tribe members or warriors/hunters of rival groups might have been quite common. However, cannibalism as a common food source would most likely be another case of ‘only in dire necessity’. It’s otherwise a little contrary to survival, don’t you think?
Genocide? Rival tribes probably fought frequently over prime ‘ease of survival’ territory, and ‘genocide’ undoubtedly occurred fairly often, as far as vanquishing a rival tribe was concerned. However, true genocide was probably rare; all of the males in a defeated tribe, from infant through elderly, would most likely be killed, but the females would be spared and incorporated into victorious tribe as slave labor and/or mates. Female infants may have been spared both as future mates and to both pacify and inhibit their mothers. But while the defeated tribe may have ceased to exist as a separate entity, its genes and some of its knowledge and tradition survived through the preserved female line.
And pedophilia - I’d say that probably depends on your definition of pedophilia. Sexual play with youngsters, even infants, that involved fondling and such may have been considered simple innocent fun, but sexual activity that could cause the injury or death of a very young child would almost certainly be forbidden. I doubt that pure pedophilia (primary sexual attraction to infants or obviously sexually immature children) was seen very often in early human development. Despite recent claims that pedophilia is simply a ‘sexual orientation’ like homosexuality, it is undoubtedly a serious personality disorder - pedophiles prefer children because they (pedophiles) are emotionally unable to form a satisfactory adult relationship. They can only feel safe in a relationship with someone so much smaller, weaker, and emotionally vulnerable than themselves that the victim presents no physical or emotional threat to the pedophile. Some pedophiles are also basically power-assertive rapists who enjoy the sexual domination of another human being but are too personally inadequate (cowardly) to assault an adult. The point of all of this rambling is that 1) the cultural and societal pressures that create pedophiles were probably pretty much non-existant throughout most of early human development; and 2) those with pedophilic tendencies would display other, more obvious and debilitating character traits that would most likely result, in one way or another, in their elimination from the social group at a fairly early stage.
Basically, what I’m trying to say is that a taboo would not exist before the concept and possibility of the action/behavior existed. For ‘fundamental, universal morals’ you need to go way back to very early human development and try to determine the most basic, elemental rules required for a group of humans to live together in a cooperative, mutually beneficial society.
This is just IMO, of course, although I can most likely dig up some references to support some of this. The rest of it is just pure speculation.
JET, I’m going to have to call you on this one and ask for a cite. I don’t want to add a great deal to an already lengthy post, so I’ll just toss out a couple or three brief comments.
Cannibalism, by definition, is restricted to meat-eating animals - I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a single instance of a horse, cow, or sheep knowingly and deliberately eating another member of its species, or even one of another species! Herbivores are rather plentiful, while carnivores and omnivores are comparatively rare, so the ‘common’ occurence of cannibalism in the ‘animal kingdom’ is actually going to be restricted to a rather small, specific group. Cannibalism may be more common in the ‘animal kingdom’ than among humans, but that’s a different statement entirely, isn’t it?
Incest is extremely common in the ‘animal kingdom’! Do you have any idea at all of how, for example, herds of horses conduct their lives in a natural state? Have you ever so much as glanced at any information about animal breeding and encountered the term ‘inbreeding’? Honestly, I don’t mean to be rude, but this human misconception is so common and so laughable to anyone with much knowledge of animals that it is actually the butt of a rather old and stale veterinary joke!
You might want to reconsider that statement.
coosa, I don’t doubt that any particular pack, herd, tribe, or society will have some set of fundamental morals, but rather that there are any morals which must be recognized by all packs, herds, tribes, and societies. With the grace of Eris and a long-handled spoon I imagine I could envision a society where any moral code goes… or, better yet, where what anyone here might offer as a moral code doesn’t fit in it at all, and yet there is still a clear social structure.
What I fail to be clear on is if there are fundamental human morals—in the sense of absolute across all “good” moral systems (where good is defined in a non-tautological way with respect to the fundamental morals)—why is it so darned hard to get everyone to agree on them? Pick a moral code, and we had to make a law to stop people from breaking it. Not only that, but given a week and a metro area news channel and I bet you could find a hint (if not a direct mentions) that someone did this crime.
Fundamental morals seem so darned obvious (to some, and in fact once upon a time to me), but I’ve yet to figure out why we don’t find them everywhere, and why—unlike laws of physics, for example—they are so easy to deny.
A very interesting discussion so far, with some very good points raised (except for the poor tortured babies. Leave the babies alone already, JThunder! Four times in two threads ain’t healthy).
We’ve got a few possibilities:[ol][li]There are fundamental human morals based on evolutionary biology, that work towards maintenance of the species.[/li][li]There are fundamental human morals derived from Above.[/li][li]Each society’s morality is self-defined.[/ol]If we take postulate 1, we have to address the development of societies over time (e.g JThunder’s point regarding slavery). Since the taboos I listed above (and add cannibalism, murder and slavery too) have in fact been acceptable in different societies over the centuries, then surely this argument is void, since those societies would have been evolutionarily unsuccessful and would have died out.[/li]
This leaves us with postulates 2 or 3.
The wide interpretation of religion, and the many differing religions that exist simultaneously with conflicting morals appears to contradict 2, though I would be interested in hearing if there is a single religious ideal that is universal to all faiths (another GD, perhaps?). I’ve heard the “do unto others as you would have others do unto you…” one bandied about without much evidence, and this often seems to have an “apart from…” clause attached. Furthermore, since I don’t have a faith, I find this impossible to accept. YMMV!
I have to conclude that 3 is correct. It’s a head-wrecker, because the taboos listed are to me so awful and horrible. But I think the evidence shows that morality is simply what society deems correct. Our emotions regarding taboos follow from there.
Why do you keep telling me to not bring this up? Is it because you find the idea of tortured babies fundamentally abhorrent? Or is that merely your own cultural view, which you are now imposing on me?
So you say that morality is simply defined by one’s culture. I guess we should have no problem with beating slaves or exploiting women then, as long as we move to the right culture.
In fact, this suggests that 19th century southern America was NOT wrong to own slaves. After all, slavery was simply part of their culture, and their culture defined it to be acceptable. I’m sorry, but I simply can not accept that conclusion.
I think one basic flaw in your thinking rests in the following postulate:
… which reflects an unwarranted conclusion. Sure, there are many different religions. How does this imply that there are no moral absolutes? Quite simply, it doesn’t. One could just as easily argue that the religions which violate these absolutes are simply wrong.
In addition, many so-called differences are not as severe as they might seem. Many skeptics point to Hinduism and say “Look! They believe it’s wrong to eat beef. This shows that there are no moral absolutes.” One must examine their beliefs more closely, though. The Hindus do not eat beef, in part, because they believe in reincarnation – in other words, the cow that was slaughtered might very well be one’s grandmother! So while Hindus and Judeo-Christians might differ on the eating of beef, they do agree that it’s wrong to slaughter one’s grandma!
You ask me to stop bringing up the topic of tortured babies, yet this is a prime example of a universal moral principle. Is there any culture that would condone torturing babies for fun? Can you think of a single one? And if you did find one, would you ever claim that they are justified in doing so?
What about torturing homosexuals for fun? Is this ever justified, even on a cultural basis? What about the ritual castration of atheists? Or the mass execution of Jews? Heck, if someone’s culture deems these to be acceptable, who are we to object? Right?
JThunder, you continue to leave your cultural blinders on. No one is suggesting that they find anyone owning slaves or torturing babies to be “ok”. I am happy to condemn any society which chooses to do something. I am comfortable with my morals; that is why I have them. I also happen to recognize that the source of my morals is no more or less better than the source of their moralsm (that, in fact, there is no reference frame in which one may make moral pronouncements on moral systems). This in no way means that the strength of my conviction is less than yours, I simply have a different “moral origin” idea.
Perhaps it’s just me, JThunder, but I think you’re missing the point here. I don’t think anyone has said that it’s invariably wrong to impose the morality of one society upon a different society. Suppose we find a baby torturing culture in, oh, I don’t know, let’s say Canada, and since our society thinks torturing babies is wrong we stop them from doing so. Are we wrong to do that? Well, that, of course, is a moral judgement. And within our society I think the prevailing moral sentiment is that no, we wouldn’t be wrong to stop them.
Slavery is similar. You say that you can’t accept that it wasn’t wrong for Southerners to own slaves. Well, that’s fine. It was wrong – to us. In our morality, it was wrong for them to do it. Of course, they didn’t see it was wrong; if they had, they wouldn’t have done it. I think that’s unarguable. So they thought they were right, and we think they were wrong.
So then the question that comes up tends to be “how do we know we’re right?” And we can’t know. In fact, it is my contention that such a question is meaningless. Right and wrong only have meaning in regards to a particular moral system. There is no self-evident universal moral system. As such, meta-moral questions can never be answered. Whether something is right or wrong in an inter-cultural context is undefined. That doesn’t mean we’d be wrong to stop a baby torturing culture from continuing to torture babies. We’d be right, within the context of our moral system. And that’s the only one we can judge ourselves by.
And I think you’re still missing the point, as evidenced by those selfsame words which I underlined.
If the source of their moralism is no better or worse than the source of yours, then you have no rational basis for condemning their practice. The mere act of condemning their behavior suggests that your own worldview is somehow more “correct” than theirs.
That is why cultural moral relativism is a worldview that has its feet firmly planted in mid-air.
As a theist, I have an answer to the first of those questions.
Answering the second is a bit more complex. Some basic values fall under the category of moral intuitions – things that every reasonable human being should recognize as correct. Less basic, less obvious principles may be derived from these intuitions, but shaped by logic and the person’s situation. Also, as a theist, I would not rule out the possibility of communication from a divine source, although the authenticity of such must be subject to scrutiny.
Ultimately though, both of these questions are tangential to the OP – namely, whether objective moral values truly exist.
JThuder, rendering judgement on “betterness” can only be done from within a moral framework. There is no point in debating which moral system is better than another because that conversation must take place from within a third (if not one of the two argued about) frames.
As Amok said, relativists recognize that there is no way to know which moral system is more correct. Furthermore, they posit that there is no sense in which a moral system can be more correct. This does not translate into a state where all moral systems are somehow equal, as such a statement is (IMO) obviously contradictory to the premises.
Glancing through pages that Amazon provides as teasers for the book I come across some errors that are made by self-proclaimed relativists, and errors that I myself have made in my previous attempts to attack moral relativism. Some of which are statements like, “…statements of fact can [never] be anything more than just opinions…” and “We have entered an era of dogmatic skepticism.”
What I think the crucial aspect of relativism is is exactly what Amok mentioned when he said, “So then the question that comes up tends to be ‘how do we know we’re right?’ And we can’t know.” What moral absolutists fail to offer are explanations for how one can recognize the existence of an absolute moral system or at least a set of absolute morals that every system must contain that stands up to modest skepticism. There is no need to beckon the solipsist to refute many conceptions of absolute morality, and yet time and time again absolutists paint relativists into corners that suggest that we cannot rightfully condemn any action because the actors were simply operating in a different moral framework. I would simply say, “So what if they were? That in no way undermines my morality,” or, in the case of one country acting against another, “our morality.” Like the fundamentalist who insists that atheists cannot act morally, attacks on relativism consistently fail to recognize that the only flaw they see with a relativist system is that it isn’t absolute. There is no reason why a relativist couldn’t share, as a one to one function, moral elements with these absolutists, for the instant they mention the idea that their system was not, and could not, be obtained from a self-evident a priori fashion (or by an argument from authority) the absolutists fell like they’ve “won.”
“A-ha! What right do you have to condemn baby killing? After all, they just have a different moral system than yours. You can’t say yours is more correct!” Sure I can… from within my moral system!
That looks like an interesting read, however. Put that on my “save” list at amazon.
I have not read the thread.
I was driving to work this morning when it suddenly dawned on me that the religions of old are not needed in todays society for one very good reason - breeding.
In the pre/indocrto-religious days, we forced religion upon people in attempt to make them more moral. People are born moral in this day and age. We should forget religion… unless people are amoral. In which case we should give them religion as punishment for their sins (as decided by the slipping moral)
Amen!
I see. So if another culture chooses to practice slavery, you don’t think there’s any point in debating whether they’re right or wrong? Or even if they practice ritual castigation of homosexuals? Once again, I can’t swallow that.
I agree that an external reference frame is necessary – which is why I believe that moral relativism is a bankrupt worldview. There are ethical/moral principles which simply transcend culture.
The moment you judge whether another culture’s actions are better or worse, you are applying YOUR moral standards to that culture. Yet if morality is simply a product of one’s culture, and has no absolute foundation, then on what basis can you claim to judge that culture? Quite simply, you can’t… not rationally, and not self-consistently.
Well of course you ‘can’ say such things… just as you can claim that 2+2 = 5. It’s still a logically incoherent worldview.
It seems to me that you’re saying (a) that you can condemn the morality of other cultures, and (b) that their morality is no better or worse than your own. In other words, you can condemn their morality as being ‘wrong,’ yet you don’t believe you can say that their moral standards are any worse than your own. Can you not see the contradiction in that statement?
In fact, let me ask you a question. Does your culture dictate that we should not be judging the morality of other cultures? Please consider your answer carefully, because I’ll be following that up with some other questions.