What is morality?

[lovesilentdeath]

What do people mean by morality? Is it living a life not to intentionally harm others? Does it include helping others? Is there a standard morality within the social contract? Is morality relative? These are some questions I would like to discuss. Along with this, the use of some tools, which may flush out meaning, for example, look at this test, there is no personal information required, just demographic information; the results are not telling beyond a statistical measure, the constructs are very simple, perhaps too simple to convey and real meaning. Let me know what you think about pursuing this subject?

First test here (http://wjh1.wjh.harvard.edu/~moral/test.php).

[Schneibster]

Morality is a bunch of rules written by stone age sheep fuckers herders that said sheep fuckers herders claim jebus will send you to "hell" for not obeying. Whatever that means.

Your post is about ethics, unless you think stone age sheep fuckers herders understand ethics against all the evidence to the contrary.

[David B]

I'll excuse myself from the test, on the grounds that I've seen it before.

My view of morality is that it is an emergent, and still emerging, phenomenon.

David

[lovesilentdeath]

I'll excuse myself from the test, on the grounds that I've seen it before.

My view of morality is that it is an emergent, and still emerging, phenomenon.

David

I'm sure the test is no more than another examination of what those who developed it believed was considered a definitive of moral. I do not know if morality is emergent, in what sense, or context? The question, for me, remains, what is morality?

Have you ever taken the Robin hood (http://www.talisman.org/quizzes/robin-hood-morality.shtml) test? It said: "You are the slightly romantic realist. You respect truth, and are broadminded and flexible. Whether you are a man or a woman you are probably a happy person. You like people and they can readily make friends with you. You are not very adventurous, but this does not bother you. " Well, maybe?

[Schneibster]

What do people mean by morality? Most of them mean ethics, but most of them also believe that ethics can be determined by a magic dude in the sky, or by stone age sheep herders.

Ethics are determined by values. One determines the value one wishes to assign to various things, and then decides one's actions based on the values one assigns to the expected outcomes of the potential actions one might take.

Some people irrationally believe that there is some set of rules that is somehow immutable or decreed by jebus or dog or something, and therefore perfect; I have never found a set of morals that were absolutely right or wrong in all circumstances, they always increased suffering somehow or other when obeyed inflexibly. Ethics are as flexible as our values, which makes them useful in the real world, as opposed to morals which are inflexible and therefore useless. Many unethical actions are justified by the unethical by pointing to some moral they claim justifies them; many of these justifications are specious and intended by their users to deceive. None of these unethical people could get away with this if they were challenged on ethical grounds, but they reject them using religion and continue to act unethically. Their clearly apparent goal is to act as they wish to act, not to act morally or ethically.

Since morals have been so abused, I consider them untrustworthy. I try to stick to ethics. I also regularly mention that morals are for children and animals incapable of understanding ethics; adult humans use ethics. I should add that honest adults use ethics.

Is it living a life not to intentionally harm others? Only if they're not intentionally harming you, and only if your notion of "harm" accords with most peoples'.

Does it include helping others? Depends on your values. It could be argued that values that prevent you from helping others are unethical, but we're not going there unless you get a lot farther along in this subject than your IP indicates you seem to be.

Is there a standard morality within the social contract? Yes; we call it "the law."

Is morality relative? Morality isn't; that's the main problem with it. Ethics are.

[lovesilentdeath]

I may agree with you to an extent, while this is much more I would say, if requested. There is no part of me assuming a belief in any deity. If morality is made law, then we question the bases of that presumed morality, as to its practicality.

I would say the morality in helping others is reciprocal altruism, in many forms, not always apparent as such.

[rog]

Is morality relative? Morality isn't; that's the main problem with it....

I beg to differ.

[Schneibster]

I would add reciprocity to my evaluation of the values of an altruistic act. In fact I generally do, and act altruistically as a result more often than I otherwise would.

[Schneibster]

Is morality relative? Morality isn't; that's the main problem with it....

I beg to differ.You might; and if you claimed that there are moral codes that do not include the morals we normally hold dear I might admit that my argument applies more to the type of morality we generally find in Western societies. I of course forgot Sparta, where stealing wasn't immoral, getting caught was.

[rog]

Indeed; being a good Communist, Mayan or Muslim - they could all be moral but very different in action.

[Schneibster]

However, within a single society, morals are absolute if that society accepts a single moral code. And they generally do.

And an individual moral is absolute in the context of the moral code it comes from. That was my point, which is not affected by your argument. I acknowledge your point, but argue that it applies to an interpretation of the phrase "absolute morals" that I was not using.

[rog]

Fair enough, what does the OP think - does this move the answer to the question closer?

[lovesilentdeath]

Fair enough, what does the OP think - does this move the answer to the question closer?

Not all that much, although the tests are trite, as most free online tests tend to be, I have an affinity for numerical analysis. My views are materialistic, based on what is knowable, not imagined, scientific, rather than philosophical and not at all mythological.

Having said this, I have done my homework on the other side and could debate with this best on western religions, which only explains better my own notions that religion is a security and usually a means of social control.

On the moral test, my score was much lower than the statistical average of test takers. I would also say, being a relativist, I would score high on Machiavellian. There is a test here (http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/09/13/machtest), it might be trite, but it is free.

[rog]

For me the problem with a test is that I might lie, so as to appear to be perfect; which of course I am ;)

[lovesilentdeath]

For me the problem with a test is that I might lie, so as to appear to be perfect; which of course I am ;)

Not going to touch on this one too hard, the main, and highly expensive tests, I know what my answers will say about me, such that I could not deny making a good impression. On tests about politics, morality and such, my answers would be more real. On the last test, the one on Machiavellianism, I thought it too simple, yet scored 85, which is pretty charming!:)

[rog]

For me the problem with a test is that I might lie, so as to appear to be perfect; which of course I am ;)

Not going to touch on this one too hard, the main, and highly expensive tests, I know what my answers will say about me, such that I could not deny making a good impression. On tests about politics, morality and such, my answers would be more real. On the last test, the one on Machiavellianism, I thought it too simple, yet scored 85, which is pretty charming!:)

See, now If I'd been doing that test I'd have reread 'the prince' before hand, aimed to hit the low/high point and then complained that they misunderstood Machiavelli.

[lovesilentdeath]

For me the problem with a test is that I might lie, so as to appear to be perfect; which of course I am ;)

Not going to touch on this one too hard, the main, and highly expensive tests, I know what my answers will say about me, such that I could not deny making a good impression. On tests about politics, morality and such, my answers would be more real. On the last test, the one on Machiavellianism, I thought it too simple, yet scored 85, which is pretty charming!:)

See, now If I'd been doing that test I'd have reread 'the prince' before hand, aimed to hit the low/high point and then complained that they misunderstood Machiavelli.

Ah, I see. That test is so simple you could make it come out any way you wished, just on face validity alone. :rolleyes:

Still, is there such a thing as morality? You might have read this, it was a book by Hegel on religion, oh, he was out to prove it, what was in his head, was outside of his head, and I was not all that impressed.;)

[David B]

I'll excuse myself from the test, on the grounds that I've seen it before.

My view of morality is that it is an emergent, and still emerging, phenomenon.

David

I'm sure the test is no more than another examination of what those who developed it believed was considered a definitive of moral. I do not know if morality is emergent, in what sense, or context? The question, for me, remains, what is morality?

Have you ever taken the Robin hood (http://www.talisman.org/quizzes/robin-hood-morality.shtml) test? It said: "You are the slightly romantic realist. You respect truth, and are broadminded and flexible. Whether you are a man or a woman you are probably a happy person. You like people and they can readily make friends with you. You are not very adventurous, but this does not bother you. " Well, maybe?

I have now.

We would expect you to be a happy, well-balanced person who likes people and is liked by others. You question whether many conventional views on morality are valid under all circumstances.

Men: Do we detect a sense of chivalry and idealism under the sophistication

David

[Eudaimonist]

What do people mean by morality?

They mean different things by morality if you are talking about content.

Is it living a life not to intentionally harm others?

While I would include that in my personal morality, I wouldn't limit it to that either. For me, morality is a means to personal flourishing. It's not just a solution to inter-personal conflicts, either. It is, at least in part, about decisions that have oneself as the primary focus.

Does it include helping others?

I personally wouldn't exclude that. Let's say that it includes that in moderation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Ozymandias]

In my view morality is an advanced evolved conditioning to make us act in a fashion that promotes propagation of the species.

[Sensi]

In my view morality is an advanced evolved conditioning to make us act in a fashion that promotes propagation of the species.

I could not agree more, I made this exact point on another forum and apparently there was one guy that disagreed to the point of anger as he got insulting even after I thanked him for making me really think. This seems like it might be a hot topic.

[Politesse]

Cannot take the test, as I've seen it before. I would answer the question in the OP thus: Morality is living in accordance with the virtues that a person agrees to be worth cultivating.

[Rie]

Morality the word comes from the Latin word for the 'customs' of a people. On that basis , we aren't a very nice species but misguided and afraid of our shadows. (cf. Carl jung re 'shadows')

[David B]

Some years ago, in a far of space and time, aka IIDB, I, among others, had a long talk with Febble, then a much more orthodox theist than she is now, if she is a theist at all.

I spent a long time trying to persuade her that a meaningful morality was consistent with atheism, in the course of which I persuaded her to read 'Freedom Evolves'.

She very much took Dennett's aphorism 'If you make yourself really small, you can externalize virtually everything.” on board. As do I.

Googling that quote, just now, I came across http://www.human-nature.com/nibbs/03/dcdennett.html

I could go on, both in praise of Freedom Evolves, and in sharing the personal ruminations (inevitably?) evoked by so provocative a book. But the final words should belong to Dennett himself. Here, then, is part of his concluding paragraph:

Far from being an enemy… the evolutionary perspective is an indispensable ally. I have not sought to replace the voluminous work on ethics with some Darwinian alternative [emphasis in original], but rather to place that work on the foundation it deserves: a realistic, naturalistic, potentially unified vision of our place in nature. Recognizing our uniqueness as reflective, communicating animals does not require any human “exceptionalism” that must shake a defiant fist at Darwin and shun the insights to be harvested from that beautifully articulated and empirically anchored system of thought. We can understand how our freedom is greater than that of other creatures, and see how this heightened capacity carries moral implications: noblesse oblige. We are in the best position to decide what to do next, because we have the broadest knowledge and hence the best perspective on the future. What that future holds in store for our planet is up to all of us, reasoning together.

Yes! I'm not sanguine about it, though.

David

[columbus]

In my view morality is an advanced evolved conditioning to make us act in a fashion that promotes propagation of the species.

I could not agree more, I made this exact point on another forum and apparently there was one guy that disagreed to the point of anger as he got insulting even after I thanked him for making me really think. This seems like it might be a hot topic.

I could not disagree more.

Morality is learned behaviour. Our "advanced evolved conditioning", also known as instinct, "make us act in a fashion that promotes propagation of the species". That is why we humans are so inclined toward murder, rape, and theft.

Morality is when we learn to live in a way that is conducive to having a high quality life experience.

Tom

[Ozymandias]

Morality is learned behaviour.


I agree that some part of it is also learned from the previous generation, but it is still geared toward the propagation of our genes. That is why slavery was moral for a time, because the enslaved races did not effect the slave keepers' gene pool. The only unambiguously definable 'good' is the propagation of our genes, so it is natural that that should be the focus and cause of morality.

[Eudaimonist]

I agree that some part of it is also learned from the previous generation, but it is still geared toward the propagation of our genes. That is why slavery was moral for a time, because the enslaved races did not effect the slave keepers' gene pool.

Or maybe it had nothing to do with that. Slavery was simply convenient. Genes really had nothing to do with it, since evolution couldn't have anticipated the development of institutionalized slavery. It may be that evolution didn't punish slavery by making it revolting, but it didn't necessarily reward it either by making it seem naturally pleasant. Evolution was taken by surprise, as it were.

Also note that our current revulsion to slavery was no genetic improvement in the human species, but a purely cultural and philosophical one. Morality is too maleable to be merely some "instinct", even if evolution has provided us with mental capacities such as a sense of fairness, or empathy, or conscience.

The only unambiguously definable 'good' is the propagation of our genes, so it is natural that that should be the focus and cause of morality.

I'm afraid that doesn't really follow. While I don't doubt that evolution has created what we are, that doesn't mean that morality must be about the propagation of genes in any primary sense. We aren't necessarily "programmed" to that extent, as if we lived on pure instinct. Consider the Shakers, who were strict believers in celebacy, and this was certainly moral in their eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers

Morality is hugely influenced by culture. Whatever genetic influences there may be are not the sole determiners of the content of morality.



eudaimonia,

Mark

[Ozymandias]

But the shakers died out fir obvious reasons. Evolution deselected their genes. Any moral system that restricts having offspring will be at a disadvantage.

[Rie]

I took what you said about slaves to mean that as long as no white man/woman slept with and became pregnant with the child of a very mixed marriage to be the bit that tips the fulcrum?

[columbus]

Morality is learned behaviour.


I agree that some part of it is also learned from the previous generation, but it is still geared toward the propagation of our genes. That is why slavery was moral for a time, because the enslaved races did not effect the slave keepers' gene pool. The only unambiguously definable 'good' is the propagation of our genes, so it is natural that that should be the focus and cause of morality.

I still say you have this exactly backwards.

Our instincts have evolved to induce us to spread our genes in the wild. But that isn't a big part of having a quality life. Morality is the behaviour we learn that does tend to result in a happy and satisfying life.

There might be a rudimentary instinct towards fairness, but by and large instinctive behaviour is more about impulsive sex, theft, and murderous tribalism. That's because those sorts of behaviour will tend to result in more surviving progeny in the wild.

Humans are also born with the ability of abstract thought and learning. We can learn to have a better life, although we don't always, and we often fall to the temptation to indulge our instincts even when the personal costs are very high.

The evidence for this is all around. Who has the best life, the people with the highest number of offspring or the ones whose lives revolve around other things?

Tom

[mood2]

empathy is an instinct too

[David B]

empathy is an instinct too

Mirror neurons I find intriguing, even of a lot of the studies on them remain contentious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

Stephanie Preston and Frans de Waal,[33] Jean Decety,[34][35] and Vittorio Gallese[36][37] have independently argued that the mirror neuron system is involved in empathy. A large number of experiments using functional MRI, electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) have shown that certain brain regions (in particular the anterior insula, anterior cingulate cortex, and inferior frontal cortex) are active when people experience an emotion (disgust, happiness, pain, etc.) and when they see another person experiencing an emotion.[38][39][40][41][42][43][44] However, these brain regions are not quite the same as the ones which mirror hand actions, and mirror neurons for emotional states or empathy have not yet been described in monkeys.

More recently, Christian Keysers at the Social Brain Lab and colleagues have shown that people who are more empathic according to self-report questionnaires have stronger activations both in the mirror system for hand actions[45] and the mirror system for emotions[43], providing more direct support for the idea that the mirror system is linked to empathy.

David

[Eudaimonist]

But the shakers died out fir obvious reasons. Evolution deselected their genes.

That's not the reason. It was their "memes", not their genes, that weren't passed on to future generations. For all we know, no genes were actually lost, since they may have had plenty of non-Shaker relatives. And here is what Wikipedia has to say:

Membership in the Shakers dwindled in the late 19th century for several reasons: people were attracted to cities and away from the farms; Shaker products could not compete with mass-produced products that became available at a much lower cost; and Shakers could not have children, so adoption was a major source of new members. This continued until the states gained control of adoption homes.

Under different social conditions, Shakers could have little problem continuing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Rie]

I couldn't access your link Eudaimonist. However I don't know how a folk dedicated to celibacy could do other than wither and drop off the tree.

[Jack Willsson]

I couldn't access your link Eudaimonist. However I don't know how a folk dedicated to celibacy could do other than wither and drop off the tree.

It seems that whatever morality you embrace you think it's "ethics" but it's merely the convention of your society.

[columbus]

empathy is an instinct too Probably.

But it isn't nearly as strong as other instincts. Take a look at the world around you. Does empathy seem as strong a motivator as acquisition or sex?

Tom

[mood2]

empathy is an instinct too Probably.

But it isn't nearly as strong as other instincts. Take a look at the world around you. Does empathy seem as strong a motivator as acquisition or sex?

Tom

Well taboos on theft and rape are pretty widespread. We're a social species, we've evolved cooperative as well as selfish impulses, and intellects which can rationalise and codify behaviour.

[Politesse]

empathy is an instinct too Probably.

But it isn't nearly as strong as other instincts. Take a look at the world around you. Does empathy seem as strong a motivator as acquisition or sex?

Tom

I would say yes to this. On the whole, most people routinely make sacrifices on behalf of others. Not always as flashy as jumping in front of a bus, but empathetic behaviors are very deeply engrained.

[Rie]

I ran out of money... in and of itself not to be marvelled at (cf. my ex husband) at the checkout in the supermarket and the girl said, as I, terribly embarassed rooted and dug in my bag, "Here you go' and made up the total from her own purse. That is empathy.

[Karen Kolehmainen]

There was a study in which people were presented with thought experiments in which they had to make decisions about morally ambigious situations, for example, whether it's acceptable to let a small number of people die in order to save a larger number. The test was given to a wide range of people from different cultures and religions. The results were surprisingly uniform across these groups. Sorry, but I don't have the reference; I don't remember who did it (it's been a few years) and I don't have time to do an extensive search.

To me, this suggests that there is a significant evolutionary component to morality.

[David B]

There was a study in which people were presented with thought experiments in which they had to make decisions about morally ambigious situations, for example, whether it's acceptable to let a small number of people die in order to save a larger number. The test was given to a wide range of people from different cultures and religions. The results were surprisingly uniform across these groups. Sorry, but I don't have the reference; I don't remember who did it (it's been a few years) and I don't have time to do an extensive search.

To me, this suggests that there is a significant evolutionary component to morality.

I don't remember the source either, but I've either seen those studies or similar ones.

And agree that morality has in part evolved.

As, IMV, has, as we are talking about in another thread, the ability to take morally significant decisions.

One could say that there is a degree of co-evolution of morality and freedom, IMV.

David

David

[rog]

Try this week's BBC4 [tv] prog "Justice", it talks about Bentham, Kant and Aristotle.

[Ozymandias]

I still say you have this exactly backwards.

Our instincts have evolved to induce us to spread our genes in the wild. But that isn't a big part of having a quality life. Morality is the behaviour we learn that does tend to result in a happy and satisfying life.

[snip for brevity]

The evidence for this is all around. Who has the best life, the people with the highest number of offspring or the ones whose lives revolve around other things?


What difference does "quality of life" make? Evolution doesn't care if you have a nice time. All it cares about is if you pass on your genes. It will select traits that provide you with more (successful) offspring. The ability to have a nice quality of life is not selected for.

Or to put it another way, it doesn't matter how much you or I are enjoying ourselves - we are both still evolutionary dead-ends.

[Eudaimonist]

But it isn't nearly as strong as other instincts. Take a look at the world around you. Does empathy seem as strong a motivator as acquisition or sex?

Actually, yes, it certainly does. Individuals may vary in terms of which motivations are the strongest ones for them as individuals, but empathy is no less strong overall. Empathy is one of the great sources of motivation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Eudaimonist]

What difference does "quality of life" make? Evolution doesn't care if you have a nice time. All it cares about is if you pass on your genes. It will select traits that provide you with more (successful) offspring. The ability to have a nice quality of life is not selected for.

Quality of life is not selected for exclusively, as if it were absolute top-priority, but it may very well be selected for. People who have a good quality of life may find it easier to have and raise offspring.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Rie]

But Eudai... is it also not true that bored richy riches get into lots of trouble as they do have the money to both get into it and the parents' money to get out of it? I believe that empathy lasts longer than sexual relationships however but often has to wait in the wings for the persona to evolve enough to see it as an imperative, an urge. a wanting to help another.

[Ozymandias]

Quality of life is not selected for exclusively, as if it were absolute top-priority, but it may very well be selected for. People who have a good quality of life may find it easier to have and raise offspring.


That is contrary to my experience. I tend to see poorer families (with a lower quality of life) with more kids.

[Eudaimonist]

That is contrary to my experience. I tend to see poorer families (with a lower quality of life) with more kids.

That doesn't mean that women, for instance, aren't attracted to men with a higher quality of life than the average within their pool of potential mates. What you are describing is just very recent economic/social trends, and not necessarily what has been selected for over the past several thousand years.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Rie]

Lasrsson's heroine Lisbeth Salander lives according to a morality that is quite simple. Logic seems to dominate both in the way the prose is shaped and in her decisions. There is no sense of the overwhelming power of the urge for justice being an emotional as well as a very logical impetus. I am reading a translation of course. Perhaps "The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo" 'comes across differently in the original Swedish?

[Eudaimonist]

Perhaps "The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo" 'comes across differently in the original Swedish?

While I live in Sweden, I'm not a Swede. English is my first language. I don't know the answer to your question.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Rie]

I can only contribute this as a fact about moral behaviour amongst Christians. I was actually surprised that my outspokennesss should involve the turned back. Most ill mannered. Boorish behaviour and not a bit of hesitation about it. And yet they mournfully intone on a sunday about love for one another.

[kriswest]

To the OP,

I am morally obliged to love my children.
I am ethically obliged to care for them until they are adults.

[Rie]

To love as an obligation... how sterile. Morality is at the heart of all caring feelings.