Do we need a universal standard of morality?

@Mutian,

There is no possibility of any such thing as a universal morality (unless in your own private universe).
I have no morality, generally, must I accept your notions of morality?
Besides, religion says that morality is a sin! Gonna get everyone to relinquish their cherished beliefs? Unlikely.
If you wish to push your own notions of morality onto others you will meet resistance. Ultimately, if you pursue such a vain path, death. History stands as evidence.
Everyone is unique.

@Mutian,

I honestly think we already do, regulated by intersubjectivity. Fuzzily, without getting into the specifics, it seems like First and Second world nations already agree that harm is wrong and should be avoided. The Third world may still be struggling with survival and harm may be a necessity.

But to understand why I think this, I must expand a bit. For those who have time to kill:

My propositions:

Morality is a form of judgment.
There are two sources of morality: internal and external.
Internal morality arises from instincts, conscience, pain, and empathy.
External morality is given by doctrines, either religious, legal, or authoratively imposed. External morality is based on collective internal moralities.
Internal morality gives direction; external morality gives restriction.

Morality only exists in the abstract realm.
Abstractions must originate from a physical reality in order to make sense. Conceptual existence is founded upon physical existence.*
Through experience humans have discovered that two factors trigger emotional pain: harm and injustice.
Just like emotions, instincts are simply universal intuitions. Therefore, morality is a universal intuition.
Universal meaning "regardless of culture" - then the general proposition "harm and injustice is bad" has transformed from an a posteriori truth to an a priori truth.
Consider this declaration: "murder is wrong". Since the word "murder" does not necessarily contain the quality of "wrongness", then we can say that this declaration is synthetical.
Kant declared synthetical apriori truths to be principals: principals necessarily exist.
a posteriori morality are situational factors which have the ability to compromise one's instincts. ie, the harmful use of lab rats in the search for a cure for a disease. This occurs when the ends seemingly justify the means.

Empathy, or the ability to feel another's pain, is the prime mechanism for the extension of morality into the social realm. Because we understand that harm is bad for us, then via empathy, we understand that harm is bad for other people.
Physical pain naturally presupposes emotional pain; this is an evolutionary advantage. However, if physical pain is present without emotional pain, then that means the harm is consensual.
Consent negates immorality.
Examples of consensual harm include euthanasia and sadomasochism.

Okay back to this: Morality is a form of judgment.
A judgment is the act of one person imposing their instincts on another person.
A judgment of right or wrong be done in two ways: by judging a person's intentions, or by judging the consequences their actions have caused (intentionality vs consequentialism).
Intentions are important when judging right or wrong. If a dog kicks over a candle and burns a house down, it is absurd to call the dog immoral.
Consequences determine the morality of a situation. eg. I accidentally skin my friend alive. Accidentally. No malice aforethought. I had no intention to, but it happened anyway. However, even though I am not an immoral person, the consequences were immoral, therefore the situation was immoral.
But, considering intentions are useful in terms of trial and punishment. Person A and Person B both commit a horrendous act - person A had no malice aforethought, therefore s/he recieves a lighter jail sentence.
It's the same in cases of self-defence. Self-defense is a legitimate defence in court and may acquit you from incarceration.

Jonathon Haidt first proposed the five facets of morality: Care/harm, fairness, loyalty, authority, purity. To read more on each, clickity click.
I see care/harm and fairness as the crux of all morality, while loyalty and authority are only moral in a "gulit by association" type relationship. i.e. being unloyal or disobeying authority may lead to harm or unfairness.
Purity deals with the aversion of contaminants. There is a biological advantage to avoiding unpure objects. Unpure objects are things which have the ability to cause harm (this again shows that harm/care is the crux of morality. All the other facets refer back to it).
We've talked about unpure objects, but what about unpure thoughts? These also have a guilt-by-association relationship. They also have the ability to incite actions which may cause harm.
Disgust with sex originated in the ease in which disease may spread through sexual intimacy. But sex in itself is not inherently immoral. Think of this: If one dog has rabies, public fear may arise and people might start to avoid dogs. However, dogs in themselves are not inherently bad.

CONCERNING THINGS BEYOND THE MORAL REALM

Amoral actions are those that do not directly pertain to moral judgments.
Examples include, but not restricted to: washing the dishes, feeding the dog, crossing the road.
These are amoral because the subject possesses neither malicious nor benevolent intent, and their actions do not produce a "right" or "wrong" consequence.
Sociopaths lack judgment, because they lack a conscience and empathy (both being the primary sources of morality). Their intentions fall into the amoral realm. Sociopaths are amoral people. However, they themselves are necessarily attached to the moral realm, because their actions may have harmful effects and are not immune from moral judgment.

* However, they might branch off to become purely a priori, meaning they do not relate to tangible reality in any way (an example of this would be maths).

@parker pyne,

Imp not sure if this makes any sense, but, shouldn't that be a automatic yes, since we communicate with each other? And since EVERYONE has a moral code, whatever that may be, then it would seem natural that we adapt to each others morals, through individual interactions. But then again, shouldn't "need" and "Universal standard" be a huge conflict for comparison in a society of individual perception? At least when strung together?

@parker pyne,

Wow, I am surprised by this semi-essay~ Your notion about the first, second and third world morality is very interesting and right in part.

If I understood right, were you talking about the transformation from the internal sanction to the external one? More specifically, at the outset, morality is oriented by individual intuitions to which we call the internal sanction; as civilization moves on, the role of empathy augments which transforms the sort of intuition to those external laws (religion, constitution... etc). This is also the reason why you claimed that external morality is based on collective moralities. Am I right so far? Please correct if it not be so.

I agree with most of your ideas if I have understood right. What I could not agree is that, I think, even those third countries reach the first-country-standard economically can't and shouldn't they share the same moral law, for what is accepted or welcomed in the U.S. might not be upheld in China such as freedom of choice in marriage, given that the real conception of freedom of choice has been warped and degenerated into irresponsibility in the U.S.. I will give you an example for the sake of clarity.

In my political science class, we had a discussion regarding the topic of teenage mother in the U.S. which has become a prevalent phenomenon. I totally criticize such a behavior of irresponsibility and immaturity, meanwhile most of my American classmates believe that teenage mothers are the hallmark of their freedom of choice to which they are highly proud of. To the contrary, in China, we see teenage mother as something that should never happen, for a pregnant girl would bring insult, extra burden, and bad reputation upon herself (since she is too casual about sexual intercourse without having enough knowledge of contraception.) and her family. Most importantly, she is too casual about and irresponsible for her fidelity and purity which should have been cared about with full attention and seriousness. So, do you think it would be appropriate for Chinese people to apply the same attitude adopted by my American classmates in China?

Laws are like organs on a person's face, Brad Peter's eyes might be attractive, but it does not follow that Peter's eyes will continue to be attrative on Tiger Woods' face. A beautiful woman is charming because the eyes, nose, ears of her are suitable for her, and only for her; not because her nose is Jessica Alba's, her eyes are Queen Diana's. We all know the aphorism that, "one man's meal is another man's poison." Thus, my conclusion is that, moral laws of different cultures can, to a great extent, resemble each other without being totally the same or being universalized, for such universalization may backfire.

I am looking forward to hearing your judgments.

---------- Post added at 08:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:31 AM ----------

---------- Post added at 08:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:31 AM ----------

Joe;73960 wrote:

Imp not sure if this makes any sense, but, shouldn't that be a automatic yes, since we communicate with each other? And since EVERYONE has a moral code, whatever that may be, then it would seem natural that we adapt to each others morals, through individual interactions. But then again, shouldn't "need" and "Universal standard" be a huge conflict for comparison in a society of individual perception? At least when strung together?

Hi friend,

I highly appreciate your aspiration for a cosmopolitan world. And I am not qualified for judging your lofty aspiration. But, my question is whether such adaption of different habits and customs is absolutely justified, for it is the fact that what I deem as moral and right might be wrong and immoral for you. Therefore, blind adaptions of such controversial ideologies will backfire the good will of making a cosmopolitan world.

@Mutian,

I don't think we need a universal standard of morality. Morals come from one's own judgement. Hmm, but not all people can judge sanely. Let me take back my proposal. This is a very good question, I'll have to think on it more.

@mister kitten,

Hi,

The way I view it is that morality is a set of standards and expectations that a given community agrees to in order to try reduce the amount of aggravation and grief a person might encounter within the community - e.g. no killing of each other allowed, no cheating on your spouse, etc.

Now, these standards and expectations vary from community to community depending upon what the community's objectives. For example, different religious groups may have different morals because their circumstances are different.

Most of the moral standards are instantiate by law or religious doctrine. Often they are enforced via coercion (e.g. police) or fear (e.g. if you don't do this, you want go to heaven, you will be banished, etc.).

It is unlikely, given the various circumstances of different communities you can ever achieve a universal morality (suffice to say it is no where in sight).

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;74115 wrote:

Hi,

The way I view it is that morality is a set of standards and expectations that a given community agrees to in order to try reduce the amount of aggravation and grief a person might encounter within the community - e.g. no killing of each other allowed, no cheating on your spouse, etc.

Now, these standards and expectations vary from community to community depending upon what the community's objectives. For example, different religious groups may have different morals because their circumstances are different.

Most of the moral standards are instantiate by law or religious doctrine. Often they are enforced via coercion (e.g. police) or fear (e.g. if you don't do this, you want go to heaven, you will be banished, etc.).

It is unlikely, given the various circumstances of different communities you can ever achieve a universal morality (suffice to say it is no where in sight).

Rich

Most societies seem to believe that killing the innocent without good reason is wrong.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;74121 wrote:

Most societies seem to believe that killing the innocent without good reason is wrong.

Yes. What is a good reason however is markedly different from society to society. This can be confirmed by checking out the laws in different countries and societies. They also change over time.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;74127 wrote:

Yes. What is a good reason however is markedly different from society to society. This can be confirmed by checking out the laws in different countries and societies. They also change over time.

Rich

But why should that matter? It is still true that killing the innocent is presumptively wrong in all societies. That seems to be a universal precept.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;74129 wrote:

But why should that matter? It is still true that killing the innocent is presumptively wrong in all societies. That seems to be a universal precept.

What is considered innocent changes from society to society.

Each society has its own morality and they are instantiated via various means such as law and religious doctrine. No society makes a blanket statement that all killing is wrong. There are exceptions, and these exceptions constitute part of the moral code of the community.

Rich

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;74129 wrote:

But why should that matter? It is still true that killing the innocent is presumptively wrong in all societies. That seems to be a universal precept.

Just a reminder: killing those who are not innocent is also not 100% justified. For if do so, all theives will be executed justifiably. Then, they will lose the chances of being rehabilitated.

As what I have always insisted that, the opposite of truth may not exactly be the falsity. The relationship between truth and falsity might be far more complex than what we think as it is.

@Mutian,

Mutian;74158 wrote:

... As what I have always insisted that, the opposite of truth may not exactly be the falsity. The relationship between truth and falsity might be far more complex than what we think as it is.

This is exactly one of the points I was making in my thread What Is Truth? posted recently in the Epistemology Forum.

{It is interesting that from the perspective of Jain Logic, we note that nearly every proposition has some truth to it - if one bothers to seek it out.}

@deepthot,

I would like to join your thread~

---------- Post added at 01:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:32 AM ----------

deepthot;74206 wrote:

This is exactly one of the points I was making in my thread What Is Truth? posted recently in the Epistemology Forum.

{It is interesting that from the perspective of Jain Logic, we note that nearly every proposition has some truth to it - if one bothers to seek it out.}

I would like to join your thread~

@richrf,

richrf;74115 wrote:

Hi,

The way I view it is that morality is a set of standards and expectations that a given community agrees to ...

It is better - as I will argue below - to understand "morality" as a match between an individual's outer (observable) self and his or her internal self (including both her set of ideals for what a human being should be and her self-image.)

richrf;74115 wrote:

Now, these standards and expectations vary from community to community ...It is unlikely, given the various circumstances of different communities you can ever achieve a universal morality (suffice to say it is no where in sight).

Rich

Rich: one day -- and the day is coming -- one's "community" may be a planetary-wide community, which the U.N. designates as: the human family. As the world becomes "a smaller place," a global village, so to speak, due to enhanced communication and transportation; and to increasing economic interdependence -- all of which are in a continuing upward trend -- we draw closer to that day when cultures become gradually more homogeneous. (But not homoginized.)
If and when the planet becomes warmer, more men, for example, may go without wearing a necktie. There are fashions in ideas too: memes.

I fear you are confusing the term mores with the term morality. Cultural practices are mores.
My new paradigm for Ethics, though, proposes that the relationship [- mentioned above -] of correspondence - or lack of it - between self and Self of an individual person ought to be given the name: morality.

There is good reason why English has two words here -- mores and morality. They are two distinct concepts, not to be conflated.

Rather than focus on the lack of it (on immorality), which focus constitutes judgmentalism -- it is preferable to speak of the degree of morality one possesses (similar to speaking of one's weight - in the physical realm).

Then, when this definition becomes seen as reasonable and acceptable, morality becomes a matter of degree, rather than an absolute "black or white" affair.

The opposite of morality is: hypocrisy. ...This is a failure to correspond between what one believes and what one does.

Part of one's ideal as to what a person might be or become is the notion of being of service to others ...and this is the logical segue to the idea that morality involves community, and one's social group - which could be the human species when one gains in awareness.

A person ought to have integrity and responsibility - from the perspective of morality - as well as other fine qualities and characteristics. I see no reason why there cannot be a world-wide consensus on this some day as 'western' civilization spreads.

Yes, universality is a matter of inter-subjectivity. And agreed-upon correspondences IS objectivity. That is what the term "objectivity"means to me. But let's not digress from ethics to epistemology.

Let's build a coherent, logical, system of Ethics ...one so positive, and so reasonable, that many ethicists, and eventually most folks will want to agree to it.

@deepthot,

Quote:

Then, when this definition becomes seen as reasonable and acceptable, morality becomes a matter of degree, rather than an absolute "black or white" affair.

I agree. Morality is beyond good and evil.

---------- Post added at 05:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:58 AM ----------

I read a little bit of your article, and am interested in the topic of "meaningful and valuable."

You said, what is valuable is something meaningful. Ironically, in reality,not every meaningful thing is deemed valuable in the current society, for people insanely embrace those things which can maximize their net benefits.

Second, if what is valuable is meaningful, then, who knows what is meaningful? Is something which is good for him that is meaningful? If it is good, then it follows that that thing is also valuable. Questions like these will proceed on and on, though I do not want the list to be continued.

What do you think of this never-ending process? Do you think it is necessary, my friend? Why?

@deepthot,

deepthot;74224 wrote:

Let's build a coherent, logical, system of Ethics ...one so positive, and so reasonable, that many ethicists, and eventually most folks will want to agree to it.

Hi,

One can no doubt build an individual morality, the community of which is one. However, without concurrence by anyone else, you are stuck with trying to convince everyone else around you that you have the the most coherent, logical system of Ethics - a concept that I think even a brief visit to this forum should convince you is a long way off.

I believe that it is the need for humans to form relationships that creates the motivation for a morality code and as long as individuals have unique attributes and and find themselves in unique situations, different morality codes will be created to suit these individual needs and situations. People seem to be willing to embrace different sets of morality codes depending upon the situation they are in. In other words, context affects morality.

Now, it is possible to always conjecture what might happen in the future, but I suspect that it is easier to talk about what is happening now, since anyone can manufacture any future scenario to suit their needs.

Rich

@Mutian,

I've always believed that a 'universal' or Broadly-agreed upon system of morality is not only possible, but is necessary - and that such a thing should only be based on those elements of humanity that are the most basic, the most obvious and necessary for our species; leaving the rest to culture, personal preference and individual judgment

@Mutian,

Mutian;74245 wrote:

You said, what is valuable is something meaningful. .... if what is valuable is meaningful, then, who knows what is meaningful? ....Do you think it is necessary, my friend? Why?

Thank you, Mutian, for a good question.
It has to do with the definition of "x is valuable as a C". This is defined as "x is a C. Cs have predicates a, b, c ... in their description.
x is a.
x is b.
x is c.
Etc., Etc.

Hartman understood meaning as: the set of predicates in the description of Concept C. And x is a member of the class C. This was not the las6 word on the meaning of 'meaning,' but it was an adequate way to use logic as a way to get a handle on the topic. When you describe sometthing you are in effect giving its meaning. Those attributes and predicates you mention - for all practical purposes - ARE its meaning.
He further defined 'attribute' as: the name of a property. Properties are said to be detectable by the five senses.

So we see that "value" is a function of "meaning." It depends upon it ...by its very definition. Thus it is reasonable to claim that what is meaningful is valuable and what is valuable is meaningful. Furthermore, we can deduce that a valuable life is a meaningful life. A meaningful life is one in which the person takes on responsibility and lives a life of service.

---------- Post added 07-02-2009 at 06:47 PM ----------

richrf;74266 wrote:

Hi,

... to convince everyone else ...that you have the the most coherent, logical system of Ethics ... is a long way off.

That's progress from saying it's impossible. Yes, it may take time.

In the long run a good system will out -- just as Einstein's relativity view won out after he published a paper on it in 1905. That took time too. It was 300 years before a statue was erected to Spinoza in his own home town. I am definitely not comparing myself to them. I do believe that when a good synthesis of the three prevailing ethical schools is devised, a synthesis which has a foundation in symbolic logic, that theory will win out and be persuasive. Especialy if a community of scientists begin to work with it, extend it, and confirm it with creatively-devised experiments.

richrf;74266 wrote:

I believe that it is the need for humans to form relationships ...

At this site: BayNVC - Bay Area Nonviolent Communication
you will notice that the first principle is: All human beings share the same needs: We all have the same needs, although the strategies we use to meet these needs may differ. Conflict occurs at the level of strategies, not at the level of needs.

And the second principle is: Our world offers sufficient resources for meeting everyone's basic needs: The scarcity experienced by so many people arises because we have not designed our social structures to meet everyone's needs. We can attribute any apparent scarcity to a current systemic limitation, a crisis of imagination, or a lack of skills for fostering connection.

Abraham Maslow, in his paper on The Hierarchy of Human Needs summed it up pretty well as to what those needs are, and how those needs lower on the scale are prepotent over those above it on the scale. That paper has been so widely-reprinted that it should be easy to find on the web.

richrf;74266 wrote:

context affects morality. Rich

Yes, context does affect morality. I agree. This refers to the application of the definition, not to the definition itself, though. As a term in my system's network it is constant - until a better definition comes along.

@deepthot,

deepthot;74397 wrote:

Thank you, Mutian, for a good question.
It has to do with the definition of "x is valuable as a C". This is defined as "x is a C. Cs have predicates a, b, c ... in their description.
x is a.
x is b.
x is c.
Etc., Etc.

Hartman understood meaning as: the set of predicates in the description of Concept C. And x is a member of the class C. This was not the las6 word on the meaning of 'meaning,' but it was an adequate way to use logic as a way to get a handle on the topic. When you describe sometthing you are in effect giving its meaning. Those attributes and predicates you mention - for all practical purposes - ARE its meaning.
He further defined 'attribute' as: the name of a property. Properties are said to be detectable by the five senses.

So we see that "value" is a function of "meaning." It depends upon it ...by its very definition. Thus it is reasonable to claim that what is meaningful is valuable and what is valuable is meaningful. Furthermore, we can deduce that a valuable life is a meaningful life. A meaningful life is one in which the person takes on responsibility and lives a life of service.

Thanks for the systematic answer, despite my little confusion. But I do understand a little bit better.

If I understood right, what you were saying was that, definition can only be formed by virtue of other definitions, right? But, if it is so, is this endless process a negation of the "first principle," for the first principle"should be something self-evident?

I myself totally deny the idea that there is something as self-evident, for I think that, everything's existence must be proved before becoming real knowledge. What is your insight?

---------- Post added 07-02-2009 at 09:29 PM ----------

Is there anyone who could tell me how to quote. God, I am so terribly bad at quoting which is so irksome.

Philosophy Forum

Do we need a universal standard of morality?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know