Anything goes

QUOTE
Didn't I already answer that question in concise terms?

In case you missed it, I replied: "Morals are guidelines to maintaining an environment suitable for the advancement of the species."

Would you like me to break that sentence down for you?

No need to break down the sentence, it still doesn't fully answer the question. Why is it so important to maintain the environment suitable for the advancement of the species? Who says it is important?

As for animals, being selfless, are you saying that animals live by moral standards? Or do they live simply by instinct?

Have a little trust in people, evanman. How many people aren't killing babies or stealing cars because they don't want to upset the policeman in the sky? I really don't think that's the first thought in anyone's mind. Values and morality are things we have created culturally to assign worth to desired behaviors. Why would the belief that your values are divinely dictated be more motivating than the knowledge that your values come from informed and educated conclusions? What is more likely to be exploitative and harmful: blind acceptance of a code of ethics supposedly dictated by an omnipotent being, or morality based in rational thought, education and debate?

evanman wrote:

No need to break down the sentence, it still doesn't fully answer the question. Why is it so important to maintain the environment suitable for the advancement of the species? Who says it is important?

Who says it is important for you to procreate? Who says it is important for you to get the hell out of a dangerous situation? Who says it is important to care for yourself when you are ill or hurt? These are all basic instincts. The survival instinct is the one I referred to in my comment.

Quote:

As for animals, being selfless, are you saying that animals live by moral standards? Or do they live simply by instinct?

Your point being?

Are you attempting to say that for humans the differentiation between moral and immoral behavior has nothing to do with instinct?

And then there's the fact that many species of animals (and man) learn from experience what is congenial and beneficial, also what is not. If a monkey touches something carrying live electricity and is shocked, he wonâ€™t touch it again. Mankind is lucky because not only do we have the ability to learn from experience, we also have an extraordinary sense of how to communicate what we learn and to record it for future generations to benefit from. I think this also factors in greatly.

What I am hearing is that morality is purely about what is beneficial for the individual. Ultimately no action, thefore, is ever done on a selfless basis.

Morality and ethics are purely a private thing, it is up to the individual to decide what is morally correct and/or incorrect. This, therefore, means that we must put faith in our own capacity to be right at all times. Considering our failings as a species, our tendency to fool ourselves, our basic self-seeking and deceitful nature, I would suggest that it takes blind faith to trust in ourselves.

If, as is being suggested, that there is no absolute then what makes a thing right or wrong?

evanman wrote:

What I am hearing is that morality is purely about what is beneficial for the individual. Ultimately no action, thefore, is ever done on a selfless basis.

I fail to see how you manage to equate the word "species" with "individual".

evanman wrote:

Morality and ethics are purely a private thing, it is up to the individual to decide what is morally correct and/or incorrect. This, therefore, means that we must put faith in our own capacity to be right at all times.

And you apparently take issue to the fact that humans are capable of this and claim that they should instead place their faith in an intangible being who dictates moral standards. I can far easier have confidence in my own moral compass and its effect on those around me than in that of a being whose existence I question.

evanman wrote:

Considering our failings as a species, our tendency to fool ourselves, our basic self-seeking and deceitful nature, I would suggest that it takes blind faith to trust in ourselves.

"Failings as a species"? You call surviving for millions of years a failure? You call the progress the human species has made a failure? I think you would do well to take Monger's advice and have a little faith in humanity. If you feel it takes blind faith to trust yourself, then I truly pity your lack of self confidence.

evanman wrote:

If, as is being suggested, that there is no absolute then what makes a thing right or wrong?

What makes a thing right or wrong is determined by the contemporary social and cultural consensus.

Take slavery and child marriages for instance. In biblical times (and some current cultures) they are considered perfectly moral and acceptable. In modern society, however, they are considered immoral and unlawful.

Morality is entirely arbitrary, which is why it is rife with dilemmas.

You, however, will fail to accept that fact because you are not comfortable with the concept of chaos and prefer to have all your loose ends tied up nicely.

Welcome to life, evanman.

Quote:

JW: Morality is entirely arbitrary, which is why it is rife with dilemmas.

JW, I beg to differ with you here. I think that morality is not arbitrary, but what is accepted as morality is based on what is best for the community which is defining social morales.

When a society becomes aware that a practise that is not in the best interest of perpetuating that society, they discontinue that practise. Individuals might say it's for the greater good and that it is inherently wrong, etc. but when push comes to shove, if a specific behaviour is not helpful to a certain culture in their own survival, they will eventually discontinue it or their culture will face eradication.

This is the essence of the process of evolution as I understand it. This concept applies to cultures, species and even ideas.

All actions have natural consequences. Import slaves into your country and you might have racial issues to deal with at some point. Consider women property and you may have a backlash when women realise they are a majority and no longer have to tolerate subjugation. Sexually and materially exploit children and they will be angry when they come of age and understand what was taken from them.

On a very basic level, morality means doing what is best for every member of a community, for the good of the society as a whole in order to ensure the survival of that society in the long term. I don't think that's either religious or arbitrary.

Jules wrote:

Quote:
JW: Morality is entirely arbitrary, which is why it is rife with dilemmas.
JW, I beg to differ with you here. I think that morality is not arbitrary, but what is accepted as morality is based on what is best for the community which is defining social morales.

I think we're saying the same thing, but in different words. Let me rephrase what I said:

Morality is not an absolute.

Defining morality is a reactionary measure based on arbitrary factors ("what is best for the community"). Therefore, morals are, by extension, arbitrary.

If the bi-polar scale of 'right and wrong' were an absolute, then its application would be universal and all good behavior would always be good and all bad behaviour would always be bad.

Over millennia, we humans may have refined our definition of right and wrong to a point where it may seem absolute, but our definition may not apply to the inhabitants of Jaglan Beta or Betelgeuse Five. Razz

Quote:

Morality is not an absolute. Defining morality is a reactionary measure based on arbitrary factors ("what is best for the community"). Therefore, morals are, by extension, arbitrary.

Perhaps you should define arbitrary as you are using it. I am thinking of this as an unsupported, purely subjective viewpoint. Within this definition I do not think of morality as arbitrary.

I completely agree that morality is not an absolute. It changes as we have more information and evolve as a society. According to the Bible, it is okay to stone your child to death if they disrespect you. Victorian England raised the age of sexual consent to 12.

What is "good" and "bad" behaviour changes with time. As we move from truly arbitrary standards (i.e.: religious craziness--for all those mocking the burka, Victorian standards required skirts for all table legs as that was too provocative) into more reasoned and societal standards, our values become based on reality (if children are raped, it will hurt them physcially and psychologically) rather than religious values (a widow should not remarry).

I am being nice with my example of a religious value. The Bible is brutal, as we all know very well, with this being the only book we were ever allowed to read (apart from the "letters" which were even more wierd).

My point is that values are not arbitrary, even for for a heathen like me. Values should not be based on an archaric code of morals but should be
based on what is this best choice at a set point in time given all the information one has at that point.

I see your SciFi mock of me, and even though I know you are also a closet SciFi aficionado--I won't out you anymore than you have me--I do believe that in the future many things that we as a species allow: experiments on animals, wastefully destroying our own enviornment, using the death penalty, etc., will be looked back on as shamefully as we look back on child labour, slavery and concentration camps.

Again, the values are not arbitrary, but it is a society understanding that a specific course of action (for example protecting children is one that people finally understand) is in their best interest.

We are on the verge of seeing this Sea Change in regards to the enviornment. In 10 years from now someone who doesn't recycle properly may be facing jail time in the way that someone who rapes their wife or child now is. Not that these are close to the same offence.

My point is that 100 years ago raping your wife was not an offense. Even Jesus only got the adulteress dragged to him, and since she was "caught in the very act", one has to wonder where the freaking adulterer went.

Even back then the morality code was based on what they knew: if women were unfaithful a child might arise, men were men so naughty naughty and lets leave it at that.

What I am trying to say with this is that it takes time for morality issues to really be morality issues. How the hell a Christian/Moslem/Jew/Hindu, etc. can claim to have the moral high ground floors me. So much of their holy books are redundant and what they actually practise now they pick and choose from their Holy Teachings.

In actuality, following the guide of a Holy Book, one should burn up heathen women and children (in case anyone cares, that would be the Bible that says to do that). All the teachings and Guide Books are equally open to manipulation by crazy people.

Anyway, that's my stance and I'm sticking to it.

Jules wrote:

Perhaps you should define arbitrary as you are using it. I am thinking of this as an unsupported, purely subjective viewpoint. Within this definition I do not think of morality as arbitrary.

The dictionary I used to define 'arbitrary' lists the first definition as follows:

1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary

As I see it, defining morals is a logical yet subjective process. The objective--and its parameters, right and wrong--is (presumably) absolute, but the means to attain it is not.

Jules wrote:

I see your SciFi mock of me, and even though I know you are also a closet SciFi aficionado.

I mock you not. I, too, am a closet SciFi aficionado--quite literally, actually, seeing as my copy of HHGTTG is currently located and frequently read in the (water) closet. Smile

Arbitrary
I see nothing in that defintion that says anything about logic. Arbitrary equals subjective.

My point was that right and wrong are not absolute and I see nothing to counteract my argument.

I think my point still stands.

Re: Arbitrary

Jules wrote:

I see nothing in that defintion that says anything about logic. Arbitrary equals subjective.

True. But I wasn't attempting to dispute that. My arguement is that, while the ultimate objective of defining right and wrong behavior is theoretically absolute, the definitions (morals) are subjective.

Jules wrote:

My point was that right and wrong are not absolute and I see nothing to counteract my argument.

Supposing you are correct, I believe this adds to the point I was trying to make. If right and wrong are not absolutes, then neither is anything that attempts to define it. It would be like trying to determine north on a compass with a demagnetized needle.

Jules wrote:

I think my point still stands.

Yes, it does. As I said earlier, I think we're saying the same thing, but in different words. If I may reuse the analogy of the compass: You see the rotation of the needle (Right & Wrong) as arbitrary and that of compass face (morals) as absolute, while I see the postion of the needle as (theoretically) fixed and the compass face as arbitrary.

Either way, the objective may be reached.

Re: Arbitrary
I disagree that right and wrong are absolute, even theoretically, what is right and wrong for us today is based on the information we have. The definitions and paths do change but thatâ€™s because it's the core values that change as well.

There is no Great Good out there that we all strive for. What we do is what we think is right given the information we have and also given the values of our time. Rare individuals do at time challenge the morales of a time, and these are the people who push us forward as a society.

The closest I think we may ever come to a core and basic good might be the part of the Hippocratic Oath that pledges to "Do no harm".

There are standard and morals though, and these are societaly based. 300 years ago, perhaps no one would have cared about TF's abuse of children, but people do now. 300 years ago, women were dunked if they were too mouthy, poor children had no education but instead worked gruelling jobs, and people died all the time from what are now treatable diseases.

We as a society have values and morals because they are what works and are in our best interest as a culture. We educate children and protect them from harm because this is the best strategy for producing productive members of society. We encourage entrepreneurship and capitalism because it works and is in our best interest to create a strong economy.

None of these values are arbitrary. They are extremely concrete and practical. The concept of good and evil though is somewhat arbitrary though and is not absolute. This is precisely why people from many different religions can be absolutely sure that what they believe is right, even if it means sacrificing their children or flying planes into buildings.

Itâ€™s exactly when we start thinking of good and bad as absolute and values as things that come from these that it all goes wrong. Morals and values should be based in reality. Good and evil come from belief and todayâ€™s good may be tomorrowâ€™s bad.

I havenâ€™t read any explanation for your belief in the fixed definition of good and evil. Do tell.

The evolutionary function of morals

Quote:

This is our mammalian conflict--what to give to the others, and what to keep for yourself. Treading that line, keeping the others in check, and being kept in check by them, is what we call morality. Ian McEwan

If good and bad do not exist as abosolute values, the question still remains: Are there any absolute principles or rules that work for the overall good of society as to ensure the evolutionary adaptation and survival of the species? I'm suggesting "survival of the species" as an ultimate good, although it may not be an absolute good from the viewpoint of planetary life as a whole.

Social ecologists argue that morals give humans, a social species, on of many evolutionary advantages. If we interpret our mammalian conflict as "eat or be eaten," morality allows us to constrain that conflict in a way that maintains the evolutionary advantages of human social organization. For example, it is to our evolutionary advantage as a species not to abuse children, because this strengthens their capacity to adapt to more complex social systems and survive. It also contributes to the evolution of the environment that supports our survival. There is a relationship betwen the complex global economic system that has evolved in early 21st century and societies that can assure the most advantageous adaptation of its women and children.

If the mammalian conflict is "eat or be eaten," it would seem that being the one who eats is a better survival strategy than the one who is eaten. There is truth to this when you segment humans into groups competing over finite resources, but it doesn't necessarily hold true for evolution of the species as a whole. Traits of a species that are viewed as weaknesses in one environment (or society) might support very successful adaptations in a different society or changed environment. A principle that could serve as a yardstick of ultimate good for our survival as a species could be this: You can judge what is "good" in human society by the way the most vulnerable members are treated.

None of this says anything about God. Nevertheless, if a divine Creator exists, it would make sense to program a "godlike" species with the capacity to actually change the natural environment, adapt, and select survival traits based on successful social organization. To the extent that morality contributes to successful social organization, it (morality) has the capacity to keep our mammalian conflict in check and raise the bar on our evolutionary success as a species.

WalkerJ wrote:

Jules wrote:
Quote:
JW: Morality is entirely arbitrary, which is why it is rife with dilemmas.
JW, I beg to differ with you here. I think that morality is not arbitrary, but what is accepted as morality is based on what is best for the community which is defining social morales.
I think we're saying the same thing, but in different words. Let me rephrase what I said:

Morality is not an absolute.

Defining morality is a reactionary measure based on arbitrary factors ("what is best for the community"). Therefore, morals are, by extension, arbitrary.

If the bi-polar scale of 'right and wrong' were an absolute, then its application would be universal and all good behavior would always be good and all bad behaviour would always be bad.

Over millennia, we humans may have refined our definition of right and wrong to a point where it may seem absolute, but our definition may not apply to the inhabitants of Jaglan Beta or Betelgeuse Five.

This is true esp. regards to other strange planets. As you said, "humans may have refined our definition of right and wrong..." Though I'd say something like, "A road, a path, the way by which people travel, the way of nature and finally the Way of ultimate reality." The way of life as it is called sounds like a good choice for me.

"All those men of whom you speak have long since mouldered away with their bones. Only their words remain." -- Lao Tzu

I would dare to say, in light of many people's opinions, that there are certainly useful traits or concepts that are "good" and pertain to life. Or do you all really think that there is no right and wrong things in life?

Re: Arbitrary

Jules wrote:

I disagree that right and wrong are absolute, even theoretically, what is right and wrong for us today is based on the information we have. The definitions and paths do change but thatâ€™s because it's the core values that change as well.

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning, because everything you said is exactly what I have been saying, except that I seem to have a different understanding of what the concept of Right and Wrong is.

I view it the same way I do "positive and negative", "light and dark" or any other universal pair of opposites. I believe that, theoretically, there could be such a thing as universal constant--or force, if you will--of right and wrong.

Jules wrote:

I havenâ€™t read any explanation for your belief in the fixed definition of good and evil. Do tell.

I have none because I have never been arguing that position. What you call the "definition of good and evil", I have been calling "morals" all along. What are morals if not definitions of right and wrong?

Again, I believe we're saying the same thing, but in different words.

Re: Arbitrary

WalkerJ wrote:

I believe that, theoretically, there could be such a thing as universal constant--or force, if you will--of right and wrong.

Well, JW, may the force be with you. :wink: Where we differ, as I see it, is that I don't think there is a "universal constant" for good and evil. That's it.

To Winter: My point is not that there is no standard for morality or good and evil, but that the standards change as our society evolves. I suppose my opinion is a form of moral relativism but I am thinking of morality as chronologically relative rather than culturally.

What started me thinking about this recently was coming across Lloyd DeMauseâ€™s book A History of Childhood. I read this book years ago when I first left the Family but couldnâ€™t remember the title or author for a long time. The basic premise of his book is that children have been brutalised for most of human history. When I recently realised what the book was and read some more of his writings, they disturbed me on a very fundamental level.

It took me some time to realise why his work bothered me so much, apart from the obvious triggering from reading graphic accounts of child abuse. If abuse of children is immoral, as I believe it is, have people basically been evil for millennia? How does that square up with my belief that most people in a society try to live their lives in a moral and decent way and because of this we can hold accountable those people who donâ€™t?

These questions started me thinking that perhaps my previous beliefs of morality as I perceive it being absolute and unchanging were in fact inaccurate and a hangover from my cultic upbringing. A less arrogant viewpoint is that morality as we see it today is a point along a continuum. That doesnâ€™t mean one canâ€™t take a moral stance but it does mean that the definition of good and bad is not a constant and perhaps things that we do now (like experimentation on animals) will centuries from now be seen as barbaric. For me right now this means that my perception of right and wrong is what I belive based on my values and the information I have. While I will stand by my choices, I would like to think I am open to information that may change my perspective and am open to that.

I agree with Black Elkâ€™s premise that "survival of the species" is the basis and motivation for morality and may perhaps be an absolute. I would add that this is also interpreted by the information available to us at any given point in our history. As Black Elk said, survival of the species doesn't just mean eat or be eaten at this point in our evolution. Humankind has risen to dominance due to developing cooperative and societal relationships and our understanding and development of complex relationships between ourselves, our families, our cultures, our races and our environment.

In my opinion religious rituals and beliefs themselves evolved from fear of annihilation by a power that was beyond oneâ€™s own control (natural disasters, invasion, sickness, etc.â€”flood myths, heaven and hell, all stem from our fear of extinction and desire to survive). So much of religion now and throughout the ages is about appeasing or pleasing a divine power whom will then ensure survival for oneself, one's loved ones or humanity in general, either in this life or the next. The concept of survival of the species being the underlying premise for morality goes much deeper than religious imperatives and logically is a much sounder foundation for moral judgements.

While I donâ€™t contribute this to any intelligent designer, I do think that a fundamental force of humankindâ€™s development is to learn and gather knowledge and if there is any definition at all of â€œevilâ€

Re: Arbitrary

Jules wrote:

WalkerJ wrote:
I believe that, theoretically, there could be such a thing as universal constant--or force, if you will--of right and wrong.

Well, JW, may the force be with you. :wink: Where we differ, as I see it, is that I don't think there is a "universal constant" for good and evil. That's it.

To Winter: My point is not that there is no standard for morality or good and evil, but that the standards change as our society evolves. I suppose my opinion is a form of moral relativism but I am thinking of morality as chronologically relative rather than culturally.

I believe that too Mr. Walker. Though, one may not be able to prove it, yet. I believe it foolishness to think that right and wrong are a blurred mass of popular opinion.

And Jules, please tell me why you think it is so difficult to know right from wrong. Remember what Pilate said? "What is truth?" I will now list the five moral precepts of Buddhism. Please tell me which one is not a "good" idea in any context and

1. Do not kill
2. Do not steal
3. Do not indulge in sexual misconduct
4. Do not make false speech
5. Do not take intoxicants

That sounds similar to the moral code found in the 10 commandments, does it not?

"Morality is the preliminary stage on the path to attain Buddhahood. It is a necessary condition, though not sufficient, leading to wisdom. It is absolutely essential for enlightenment."

Related to but not taking the place of a moral code is the idea of the 3 poisons or evil roots. They are:

Greed:
Greed is the cause of many offences. The five greedy desires are: wealth, sex, fame, eating and sleeping. Greedy desire is endless and therefore can never be satisfied. The lesser the greedy desire, the happier and more satisfied we are. The best prescription to deal with greed is in giving away.

Anger:
Hatred to people is another cause of evil deed. We should not lose temper and get angry when we are unhappy. We should be calm and patient.

Delusion:
It means the persistent belief in something false and distorted. We have to observe and think in an objective and rational manner, so as to avoid prejudice and misunderstanding. For instance, if we don't believe in cause and effect, and then commit offence frequently and heavily, we will suffer from the retribution.

To those souls wondering on the meaning of truth and the way of life, read those words over again. I once read somewhere that sex is the single most potent force to manipulate mankind. Don't let your lusts deceive you wether they be sex or money or fame or power or ego, etc etc etc. Master yourself first. An intelligent person understands others. A wise man understands himself.

Jules wrote:

The Family leaders refuse to address their abuse of children despite having incontrovertible evidence that it was damaging, even just to their own society, because to do so would violate their fixed moral imperative (we are divinely guided). I saw an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski on The Daily Show last night. He said that the concept of a society being allowed to do morally questionable things because of their "innate moral superiority" will eventually result in the destruction of that society. I could not agree more.

Jules, it just seems to me that you kind of contradict yourself with this statement. How can one disregard "right" and "wrong" but then maintain morality?

WalkerJ wrote:

I have none because I have never been arguing that position. What you call the "definition of good and evil", I have been calling "morals" all along. What are morals if not definitions of right and wrong?

Again, I believe we're saying the same thing, but in different words.

Well there is a difference. A moral is not merely good. A moral is rule for conduct. So the term moral pertains to human actions.

"Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary."

For example, "love" cannot be a moral, because it is not a rule for conduct. That is one reason the "golden rule" that TF touts does not work.

It may be a subtle difference, but I think it is very important.

"By their fruits ye shall know them." So if the result of an action is a good quality or thing, then it is a good action. Jesus also said, if that light that is in the be darkness, how great is that darkness. So that is why I don't trust someone else's judgment of good and bad so easily.

I think generally life and death are pretty simple to understand for most living creatures. What pertains to death? What pertains to life? Ask those questions in your own lives.

Life, the Universe and Everything
Winter, I personally think it â€œfoolishnessâ€

Re: Arbitrary

Jules wrote:

Where we differ, as I see it, is that I don't think there is a "universal constant" for good and evil. That's it.

If that is the case, then what would you call the objective that morality is designed to attain? If the concepts of right and wrong were truly as abstract and arbitrary as you say, then why is there a distinction between good and evil in the first place and why have these distinctions remained generally consistent since civilisation began?

I'm not saying the constant would have to have been established by inteligent design, but rather that it may be as much a property of this universe as the laws of gravity.

xFamily

Quick Links

My Account

able2know