The Telegraph has an interesting article here.
These look pretty good to me. According to the article what really separates cultures is the differing priorities they give to each of the seven.
Do you agree? How would you prioritise them?
I would say that if they are universal, they are probably built-in instincts. Certainly caring for the in-group and deferring to an alpha seem to be built-in. From what I know of chimp societies (and it’s not all that much), I think they follow many of these same practices.
Helping your family and passing on riches is a great way to propagate your genes. I’m pretty sure that chimps, or at least bonobos, keep track of favors and return them.
I think taboos against murder, slavery, and rape should be part of a moral code, although I guess they aren’t universal according to Oxford. It’s true that they don’t seem very universal sometimes.
I don’t know if “absolute morality” really has any meaning, but if I were going to try and put together a list of basic morals, it wouldn’t include deferring to authority. That really seems like it’s a product of how we evolved from earlier apes and the kinds of social structure they had. I’m sure that gorillas would insist on deferring to authority. If we had evolved from a solitary species like a tiger or something, it probably wouldn’t occur to us. It would be interesting to come across other very intelligent species (or aliens, or whatever) that had evolved in a very different context. Super-intelligent ants would probably be cool with slavery and communism. Super-intelligent lions would probably be shocked if you got remarried and the new husband didn’t kill your ex’s kids. It’s an interesting question to me about whether high intelligence would even evolve in a solitary species. Much of our intelligence seems to come with understanding social dynamics, and all the smarter species we know of (dolphins, chimps, gorillas, elephants) are social animals.
The system we have now is economic slavery, where the workers must do everything while the people at the top profit incredibly.
Outright slavery was abolished, but we still have slavery by other means.
You beat me to it. Capitalism has not changed since the late 19th century, it has merely transformed into wage slavery.
How is credit card debt, mortgages etc different from steel workers in a Krupp or US Steel plant in 1901?
I feel like those previous two posts are so off-topic that it’s difficult to respond to them, but here’s my attempt.
Paying back your credit card debt is “repaying a debt, fulfilling a contract”, so that fits right in with the universal morals. I disagree with your wage slavery and economic slavery viewpoint, but even if you were right, it wouldn’t refute Quartz’s OP since a taboo against slavery is not a universal moral.
Do you have anything to add regarding the OP of this thread?
Please stay on topic or at least make an effort to relate your comment to the topic.
[/moderating]
What an interesting article! Would you please clarify what’s debatable here? The Oxford study found all societies are held together by certain moral rules common to all. Since this is factual, how would I disagree? And how could I rank them, given that they’re merely presented as cohesive factors common to all cultures?I can’t say the Amhara’s emphasis on “flouting kinship obligations” is morally better or worse for their society than the Korean emphasis on “mutual assistance and cooperation among neighbours” is morally better or worse for theirs.
Perhaps I’m just too thick to understand what you’re getting at. I did enjoy the article, though.
I simply thought it would be an interesting article for debate. I’m sure some people will disagree and some philosophers will weigh in.
Here’s my thought on them.
4 of them I think are correct and do contribute to help making society better. I include help your family, help your group, return favors, and respecting others’ property.
The other three get a little dicey.
Defer to superiors. In practice the problem is superiors can be factually incorrect, corrupt, have achieved their position due to connections rather than actually earning it, abuse their power (pedophile priests come to mind) etc. In circumstances such as those I think challenging superiors would be a good thing.
Being brave. Great in theory, but in practice is often corrupted into machismo and being physically aggressive. The whole boys will be boys and get into fights with each other way of thinking, which I think causes a lot more harm than benefit.
Dividing resources fairly. This is the big one. There are several threads on this board about wealth and whether or not we should allow people to be billionaires. It’s a long complicated topic, but I think the wealthiest among us frequently did not contribute to society in proportion to their wealth.
Does being brave also apply to women?
I actually think “deferring to superiors” and “divide resources fairly” come into direct conflict. Maybe the point is that you need to balance them for society to flourish? Or that all societies have some measure of each, even though they contradict?
Why wouldn’t it? The protective mother willing to risk her life for her children is pretty well established and I think universal.
The only one that seems to grate with my intuition is the deference one - but when you consider the amount of effort that goes into “respecting your elders” in childhood education it does seem to be a universal value we try to instill in the next generation.
And I agree there is a tension between it and dividing resources fairly - many of the more famous revolution and wars in human history have been fought along those lines. When the “superiors” fail to divide resources in a way that satisfy their “lessers” we get uppity.
I posted about this in another thread, and I’ll repeat it here: I don’t agree with automatic deference to “superiors” who haven’t earned my respect. As far as I’m concerned, everyone is on probation, including me, all the time.
The others are ok, but some of the terms are vague. What is “fair” distribution? Wars have been fought over less. Family members often help each other, but sometimes families are poisonous and are best left behind; I choose to define “family” as those close to me, related or otherwise. And so on. I think this is “universal” to the extent it is too simplistic.
There’s not much to disagree with here since the article is descriptive not prescriptive.
It’s an analysis of how it is or how they try to make it, not how it should be.
Deferring to superiors is not a recommendation to just do what those over you say.
It is a description that all societies incorporate. No society is currently running on everyone having full autonomy.
The description of dividing resources fairly is poor since they then say equally.
Actually most of the the expansions (examples) could be criticized but that’s mostly a matter of trying to summarize to a few sentences.
I wondered the same thing. Murder is basically universal: sure, most groups historically permit (and even encourage) some kinds of killing, but what stable group has ever said “Hey, kill whoever you want, go nuts!”
I guess maybe they were left out because they are just a given at this point?
I mean, the things in the list are indeed things we see in all modern societies, but valued to different degrees. As someone from the UK but living now in China, I can see very clearly how the different values of these factors influences culture.
Meanwhile murder…most people maybe in their whole life will never desire to end a life. So it’s a factor in decision-making about a millionth as often.
Thank you. My point exactly. These are rules that are cohesive and common to all societies. You may think it’s crap to defer to superiors who haven’t earned your respect, but that’s not what this study is about.
Some of those change a lot from group to group, such as what is considered a fair division or what is considered appropriate behavior regarding hierarchical superiors. It’s true at a very, very high level. Might as well say “I’ve discovered every culture has in common a love for food!” No? Really? Now, what is considered good food in different places, or even appropriate food, that’s where people get to arguing.
Of course, even in the military sense.
I think that deference to superiors is so common that they would have left that out as well. So, I don’t think that’s why they left out a taboo against murder as a universal moral.
Having not read the article at all, here are my guesses:
First, every society allows killing in some situations – war and self-defense, for example. So, trying to untangle murder from those, plus honor killings, duels, other killings that I can’t think of, was too difficult or too ambiguous.
Second, things that we could call murder, such as duels and honor killings, are definitely allowed (or were allowed) in some cultures. I don’t think there was any law against duels in New Jersey when Burr killed Hamilton (which is why they did it there instead of NY), but NY might have called that murder.
So, my guess is that either murder vs. other killing was too ambiguous to untangle reliably or there were/are societies where murder was basically legal.
Interesting that there isn’t anything going the other way. Respect the people above you but don’t be surprised when they shit on you, I guess.
I think you misunderstood my point. It was not about saying murder is common therefore it was omitted. I actually agree that everything in the list is universal, but to different degrees.
My suggestion was that murder maybe was left out because it’s not something that influences our daily activities and differs all that much between developed countries.
As I say, I live in China. We have the death penalty here (boy do we!). But in terms of day to day interactions between civilians, it’s not a factor: very few people would seriously contemplate killing. OTOH differences in how individuals weight “deference to superiors” and “helping the group” are critical in understanding key differences between Chinese and Western culture.
These are fair enough guesses though.