Foxfyre wrote:I think what I've been hoping for is for some to thoughtfully to discuss whether religion and/or spirituality determines our sense of right and wrong. If it does, how does the athiest acquire a sense of virtue and evil? If it does not, how do any of us acquire a sense of virtue and evil that dictates how we design and order our society? And finally, does religion/faith/ spirituality itself have a positive or negative influence on our society as a whole?
Some people believe that morality can be determined through reason alone (e.g. Kant, Mill); some believe it can only derived from faith in a higher power or through divine command (William of Ockham); and some believe that morality is a social construct, which is either a good thing or a bad thing (Nietzsche).
Terry wrote:ebrown, my point was that even if our we are at stage 6 in our moral value development, we probably wish for others to behave by the same standards. Since we know that some other people are at lower levels, it is necessary to provide appropriate reasons (including laws and punishments) for them to do so and help them move to higher levels if possible.
I suspect that what we
really want is for others to adhere to a
higher standard of morality than us.
Terry wrote:I would not consider it immoral to drive a car without an inspection sticker, as long as you knew that the car was safe to drive. Illegal certainly, perhaps not worth the risk of paying a large fine, and you could argue that having cars inspected is good for society in general. But if it does not harm anyone or violate any God-given precepts, how is it immoral?
Kant, for one, would say that you can't adopt a rule that you wouldn't want everyone else to adopt -- that's the categorical imperative. If the rule is good for society in general, you can't ethically pursue a contradictory rule.
truth
The question of how individual's acquire their morality has been answered: enculturation/socialization. The more interesting question is how and why do different societies (with distinct cultural systems and in different historical periods) develop different moralities. It would seem that the more influential individuals and powerful classes would have a greater say in what is good and bad. It would seem that many instances of the generation and institutionalization of morals (as well as all mores) of a society would involve political contest. This perspective (of thinkiners like Nietzsche, Foucault and Marx) is less naive than that of philosophers who sense that morality is the result of rational thought and that the most rational principle is more likely to adopted, for that reason, by a society. If that were so, would'nt all societies have more similar moralities? (aside from the obvious and primitive: thou shalt not steal from or kill members of your community; strangers are fair game..
Most of us get our sense/knowledge of right and wrong from our parents, while we're growing up.
truth
You realize, of course, Miller, that that is what is meant by enculturation and socialization.
Quote:The question of how individual's acquire their morality has been answered: enculturation/socialization.
This is not a complete answer.
Morality changes each generation. Each of us goes through a stage where we question the morals of our parents. I am in my late thirties and my set of morals is significantly different than that of my parents in some ways (and alike in others).
Our society is deeply divided on some moral issues -- i.e. abortion and Homosexual marriage. I think a significant number of people have views on these issues that differ from the views of their parents.
There is also always a subset of society that consistantly rejects the morality of their society.
There are clearly other factors that affect our moral standards.
truth
EBrown, of course you are right. There is always the creative capacity of individuals to rebel. That's how cultural change occurs. Indeed, I never meant to suggest that enculturation and socialization are always perfectly successful. How horrible it would be if that were so: a society of cultural robots and historical stasis would be the result. But even when we rebel, we rebel against aspects of our cultural inventory by means of other aspects of the same inventory. Radicals use the same language and often common principles to criticize the views of conventionalists. And I guess the simple model of how cultural systems perpetuate themselves has been exaggerated by anthropologists and sociologists of the past. They have based their conclusions on simpler times, when tribes and nations could claim a certain degree of autonomy, wherein they could be examined AS SYSTEMS. Today, most societies are more complex divided, as you suggest, by many divisions of ideology, class, region, sexual preference, etc. etc. And each society is far more integrated into a global context.
there is another factor functioning here as well: 'equilibrium'.
as radical groups detach themselves from the 'staus quo' of societal moral 'norms', they inevitably over react, and swing their specific 'penduluum too far the other way.
Over time this extreme position is mollified, as it is absorbed into the 'accepted' standards.
But this always happens well to the 'rear' of where the penduluum should be aiming to coincide with today's reality.
