Well you’re excluding evidence to the contrary, by saying they don’t belong in the same category. On the grounds that it doesn’t fit your theory.
No, I’m drawing a distinction between “customs” and “morals.”
Do you not comprehend the distinction?
The Golden Rule is no more universal that the morals which guide the person in the first place. It is meaningless in a vacuum.
Spoke you are checking whether something belongs in the box tagged ‘morals’ against ‘does it have something to do with empathy’. If not, it goes into the box tagged ‘customs’.
Then you go and say: ’ See, all morals have something to do with empathy.’
And, indeed, the Golden Rule is in no way universal.
Btw, empathy is not a good way to preserve your group.
Killing the other groups off is a much better way.
How do you think ‘the message of love’ was spread in the first place?
Certainly not by applying it but by violence and by force. By a sheer lack of empathy.
Is it worth distinguishing between morals that deal with social interaction within a group versus morals that deal with group interaction?
When we, say, eliminate all the morals that are social customs (and this would include moral legislation), what remains? It is not customs which actively prevent me from killing people. However, I think I would be a fool to say that customs had no hand in shaping my morality: the very way I look on the world is shaped from the customs that surround me in some ways (most obvious: the language I use).
I don’t think anything resembling a line separates customs from morals other than: there are some things that society takes an interest in that I don’t, and there are some things that I take an interest in which society doesn’t. The method for drawing this line does not appear to be something readily defineable other than enumerating the various elements.
Latro wrote:
No.
I am checking how universal the behavioral proscription is. If it is universal, or virtually so, then it is a moral. If it varies widely from society to society, then it is a custom.
Show me a law or a custom which is widely accepted in multiple human societies, and I’ll show you a law or custom which is based on empathy.
I dunno. Looks pretty universal to me.
That should have been: “Show me a law or a moral which is widely accepted…”
I think some of us might be treating the word “universal” differently. I was using it not in the sense of “widely accepted” but rather “demonstratably and justifiably applicable to everyone.”
The line between “custom” and “moral rule” doesn’t seem well-defined. Is it moral to take another person’s life? Well, we can say that all societies outlaw murder, but what deaths all societies are willing to tolerate (that is, the line they draw between “justified” and “not justified”) as “not murder” is not universal. So how do we treat this question? Murder is immoral, but what murder is shall be defined by a custom? 
—You are trying to give a seperate identity to our modern set of morals.—
Yes. And instead of psychoanalyzing me, perhaps you could try to rebut my arguement?
—I don’t agree with this linear reasoning. You paint a process with a set end-result. As if this end-result was, somehow, meant to be and superior to anything previous.—
I said nothing about superior. The modern idea of morality is highly abstract and conceptual: it’s possible to have a philosophical discussion about objective morality today in a way that wouldn’t have been meaningful to ancient societies. Ancient cultures certainly had all sorts of social norms and codes, but the idea to turn them into universal propositions was a historical intellectual development (not least of all because the idea of universal propositions was itself a development). Your approach is utterly ahistorical.
—I’m not so sure it’s obvious to me, unless you’re really giving yourself some wiggle-room with the phrase “general correlation.” Could you elaborate,—
I’m not stating much more than the general Hobbesian case: the whole POINT of forming a society in the first place is to gain things (especially mutual protection of your interests) that you couldn’t have gotten in a state of autarky. Why would you join a society that didn’t have norms that protected you against being murdered and all your stuff taken? What would be the point of that? Of course, in Hobbes’ case, this proto-morality cannot work without a powerful dictator to enforce laws, but then Hobbes probably underestimated people’s ability to abstract and internalize norms.
There’s the Nietzschien case too, but we can leave that for another day.
If it is black, it’s a shoe. If it is brown it is not a shoe but a boot. Ergo, all shoes are black
How about the death penalty?
So what have we?
The origin seems to be Aryan, Zoroastrism and Vedic tradition derive it from there. Judeo-christian-muslim tradition from Zoroastrism and the Indian religions from the Vedic.
Bahai, wich lumps all these together.
Only one Western pre-christian source, the Greek.
Only one Asian source, Confusius.
Only one African source, from Nigeria.
No American source.
Widespread but no way universal.
—If it is universal, or virtually so, then it is a moral. If it varies widely from society to society, then it is a custom.—
No no no! The difference is not prescence or abscence but CLAIMED scope. Universality cannot be defined by predominant acceptance (if it were, how could anything be declared immoral?), but rather a particular philosophical stance toward a behavior. But non-universal norms are not exactly “customs” either. That’s far too dismissive.
That doesn’t mean that there aren’t obvious “good tricks” to come by when discussing social cooperation. And it isn’t hard to see how you could build more abstract morals around the internalizing of things like “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” coupled with people’s ability to empathize.
Ehrm, that was a rebuttal, just there.
Nice job of contradicting yourself.
No offence but after the above, you call me ahistorical?
Empathy for the killer’s victim and the victim’s family.
There is obviously tension between that empathy, and empathy for the condemned killer. Hence, the death penalty is not universal.
But OK, Apos.
If I understand you correctly, you claim we can look down from atop our mountain and formulate an abstract universal morality.
I’m very interrested in hearing what that is.
The same thing is going on here. There is a basic tension between empathy for the person killed, and empathy for the person doing the killing. Which empathy is given more weight in gray-area cases is, yes, a matter of custom.
AAAAAAAArgh…
Y’know, I kind of agree that the Death Penalty is an example of non-empathetic morality; and I still believe that the linkage is weak, though I have been considering the converse question:
Are certain immoral actions empathetic?
I say yes. It seems to me that cerain empathetic reactions obscure the logical course of action, for instance, if you were unable to kill an enemy on the course of battle, and therefore the battle was lost. Whether your action was “immoral,” I suppose is up to debate, but it’s certainly the “wrong” action.
Certain other hard-hearted calculuses would be wrongly decided by empathy. Jury awards, for one – universally considered to be out of control, even by the prosecuting attorneys, but arise out of an over-emphasis on empathy.
Or consider those unduly living in fear due to this year’s media-generated scare, Child Abduction. Their worry, I submit, comes from excessive empathy with the parents whose lives are reported in detail.
Or fourthly, consider saintly behavior; Suppose one empathized so much with others that one valued their emotions more than one’s own. Should I starve myself to death so that you can have breakfast? This would be “Moral” behavior, by Spoke’s definition, but I disagree that it is good, for 2 eyes for 1 eye makes the whole world blind, regardless of which side initiates the transaction.
Well, empathy should be the basis for morality, but it needn’t define nor encompass it.
“Should be the basis of morality” heh… nice recursion there, eh?
But bear in mind that the ultimate reason we have the trait of empathy is (in my view) self-preservation. In a survival situation, self-interest should override empathy for others (except possibly your own children). If it doesn’t, well, your genes are about to get culled from the gene pool.
There is a limit to the evolutionary benefit of the trait of empathy.