Is morality a human construct?

[Wrenchslinger]

@pervert

Ah, but more correctly stated would be it is only applicable to oneself. That is, a given morality held by a given human is applied to himself. His morality might dictate his interactions with “other humans”. But it will dictate his actions, not those of any others.

But what good is morality if you only apply it to yourself? I would actually argue that morality has no meaning within the individual. And it only becomes knowable when we attempt to judge the actions of others.

Yes, slightly less yes, and finally no. The first one does not require the context of any human actors. The second one requires some sort of actor although I can imagine some sort of automatic firing mechanism. The last one, however, requires the existence of a human actor (unless we are talking about zombies). The only way to postulate that the last one is morally neutral is to drop the context of this human actor.

Which is exactly what I did. What I’m trying to say is that outside of its context, any given action is morally neutral. How can anyone make a judgement about any action I’ve taken (be it firing a gun, kicking a dog, or closing a book) without knowing the greater context of those actions? Until you know why the person has fired the gun, you cannot pass judgement on them.

Again, not at all. The person firing the gun, presumably, is quite capable of making moral judgements on his own actions. In fact, I’d suggest that any other person would be making such a moral judgement based on how he would judge himself in the commission of such an act.

An indivdual can never be relied on to judge themselves. The very understanding of what is good and what is evil, what is just and unjust, would then dissolve into billions of self-serving definiitions. Morality only becomes meaningful when certain ideas are reinforced by shared opinion. This is why morals change and shift over time. What is acceptable to a certain group of people is wholly dependant on the circumstances they face at any given time.

The important question one asks when trying to make a moral judgement is not, “How would I wish to act in that situation.” It is rather “What is the proper action to take in a given situation” And in attempting to determine what is proper, I can’t rely solely on myself. I have to look outside.

Right or wrong is not the point in the context of this thread. The point I think you were trying to make is that morality is not based on individual judgements, but on the subjective observations of others. I think I have shown that not to be the case.

I’ll go back and reread what you’ve written, but I’m not convinced.

[pervert]

@Wrenchslinger

I’ll go back and reread what you’ve written, but I’m not convinced.

Fair enough. Let me try again.

But what good is morality if you only apply it to yourself? I would actually argue that morality has no meaning within the individual. And it only becomes knowable when we attempt to judge the actions of others.

I understand that you are arguing this, but you are wrong. Let me explain.

What I’m trying to say is that outside of its context, any given action is morally neutral.

Possibly. But outside of its context, it is also not real. The context is the action of an individual. You have to remove this essential context to get to morally neutral, and doing that removes the action from reality. I might agree that a gun shooting itself is morally neutral. However, I think you would agree that such an event is not really useful in determining how morality works. It tells us nothing about whether or not humans should shoot guns. Let alone when they should shoot them or where they aught to be aimed.

How can anyone make a judgement about any action I’ve taken (be it firing a gun, kicking a dog, or closing a book) without knowing the greater context of those actions?

The real question, is how can you not make a judgement without such knowledge of context.

An indivdual can never be relied on to judge themselves.

No one else can either. Remember that the rest of society, the local priest, the ancient book, or whatever else you think is more reliable are in fact simply constructions of other individuals. If a person can only be relied on to judge the actions of another, and he may not consider his own hypothetical possibility of taking those actions, then what happens to his context? How can other’s judgements be reliable when one’s own is not? Are not those others simply individuals in their own right?

Morality only becomes meaningful when certain ideas are reinforced by shared opinion.

This is exactly backwards. Morality only becomes meaningful when individuals internalize it and apply it to their daily lives. It does not matter, particularly, if the morality in question was voted on by the masses, decreed from some cosmic muffin, or discovered to be a charicteristic of reality through the application of reason. Creating or discovering the ultimate morality will be meaningless unless individuals practice it. It will be even less meaningful if the morality created does not even apply to individuals actions.

The important question one asks when trying to make a moral judgement is not, “How would I wish to act in that situation.” It is rather “What is the proper action to take in a given situation”

But your new question simply drops the context. What is the proper action [for whom] to take in a given situation". If you ignore the for whom part, you have essentially ignored the context. If you look at a mugger shooting a small child and simply try to determine if the gun should shoot its bullet, you will miss entirely the moral context. If you do not put yourself into the situation (or some idealized “reasonable” man), you will similarly miss the context.

The important question one asks when making a moral judgement is “How will I act in this situation I am in now.” Morality is not about passing judgement on others. It is a tool for living a life in the context of that life as a whole. It is the tool we use to put individual actions into the context of the individual who performs them. Deciding which morality to accept and apply are different questions. But this decision depends on how we anser the question “What is morality for”.

And in attempting to determine what is proper, I can’t rely solely on myself. I have to look outside.

Now, said this way, I find something I can agree with. I am not proposing that morality is the sum of the whims of an individual. I think morality can be defined by the nature of the actors who need it, and the nature of the actions which are most important to them. Specifically, humans can define morality based on the fact that they need tools to make decisions, and many of those decisions will allow them to be living humans, or not.

Unfortunately, I think you really meant that you must rely on others to define morality for you when you say “look outside”. I am afraid this is exactly wrong. You must certainly look outside. But at reality and its characteristics. Your ability to reason is the only tool you have to determine the morality which you will accept and apply. Looking to others simply abandons your own reason for thiers.

[Wrenchslinger]

@pervert

Unfortunately, I think you really meant that you must rely on others to define morality for you when you say “look outside”. I am afraid this is exactly wrong. You must certainly look outside. But at reality and its characteristics. Your ability to reason is the only tool you have to determine the morality which you will accept and apply. Looking to others simply abandons your own reason for thiers.

I think it’s exactly right. Each individual is repsonsible for making his or her own choices. The only guidelines available to us to aid and assist us in making our choices exist outside of ourselves. Sure, I could hope to lead a virtuous life, but without the examples of others to help me understand which choices are virtuous, I’ll never get anywhere.

The moral choices of a single indiviudal are insignificant when it comes to attempting to define moral behavior for everyone.

[pervert]

@Wrenchslinger

I think it’s exactly right. Each individual is repsonsible for making his or her own choices. The only guidelines available to us to aid and assist us in making our choices exist outside of ourselves. Sure, I could hope to lead a virtuous life, but without the examples of others to help me understand which choices are virtuous, I’ll never get anywhere.

But this is not true. By this logic, if you lived alone on an island, you would not need morality at all. There would be no need for you to prioritize your choices. There would be no need for you to choose between the alternatives available to you and keep those choices in the context of your life. Clearly this is not the case. Morality, a tool for prioritizing choices, is necessary for your life.

Again, I agree that “the true morality” must be found outside yourself. But if it does not exist inside you, how can you believe the it exists inside others? Don’t you understand that “others” are individuals just like you? If you are flawed to the point that your individual decisions about morality are not trustworthy because of your individuality, then you have to conclude that others are as well. There is no magic formula which allows a group decisions to be more real, more true, or more moral than an individual one. The only advantage in group cooperation is that it allows everyone access to the best individual ideas in the group.

The moral choices of a single indiviudal are insignificant when it comes to attempting to define moral behavior for everyone.

I still do not understand why you keep saying this. Isn’t it far more likely that the results of some poll or vote are insignificant if no one practices the winning morality? If everyone practices morality X but when asked or when measured the consenses morality is Y, which one is insignificant?