Moral Relativity: Where moral values come from?

@Foofie,

Ah, yes. Moral fiber.

Wait. What was that?

0 Replies

@Jpsy,

Quote:

with the ability to empathize with other humans and even animals. If you were watching a video of an animal or person being beaten to death, you would cringe and be horrified because you are able to understand, and, in a way, feel what they are going through.

You are missing half of the equation. We only empathize with the humans that we consider part of our tribe. Humans often cheer when we see people who we don't consider part of our nation being beaten to death.

Does anyone else remember when the Iraq war started. They showed the highway of death, where bombs were dropped on helpless tanks killing thousands of defenseless humans.

Many if not most Americans cheered. This is nothing unique about Americans, most human feel happy when people who aren't part of their group are killed.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

Yes, that is a good point. Sorry, I am joining this discussion without having read all four pages. As far a I know, the definition of empathy is to understand and share the feelings of another. I think we are all born with that ability (with the exception of psychopaths.) However, I believe there are other factors at work here, when it comes to the question of what constitutes one's personal morality. Xenophobia, as I think someone else pointed out, is a natural distrust, possibly outright hatred, of people who are different than you. It makes sense, in evolutionary terms, that it would be to your advantage to have an innate distrust of people from competing tribes. I think they are two different innate characteristics, & depending on the context of the situation, one of those characteristics may manifest itself moire than the other. If I saw someone beating their dog, my empathy for the dog would motivate me to stop the attack. In the case of the Iraq war, the media spinsters tapped into to our innate xenophobia, which overrode our empathy, and caused us to celebrate when these evil terrorist maniacs (as we perceived them) were bombed. However, if CNN showed children with severed heads, and grieving parents (which they strategically didn't show) than we would feel empathetic.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Remember, one of the goals of war propaganda is to try to make the enemy seem subhuman. Just look at the ubiquitous war propaganda from WWII. When we think of the enemy as subhuman, murderous barbarians, it is harder to empathize with them, and easier to go along (and even enjoy) with their slaughter. The propagandists are experts in human psychology. If you look at the propaganda used in even WWI and before, much of it was the same as today. WWI was the war to make the world safe for democracy. 100 years later we're still bombing the world for democracy. In another 100 years we may still be as well.

1 Reply

@Jpsy,

I am not sure if you are getting my point. The point is that violence and hatred are just as much human nature as empathy is. If you are going to make a human nature based argument about morality, then violence and hatred are no less moral than empathy is (since they are just as much part of human nature).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are missing half of the equation. We only empathize with the humans that we consider part of our tribe. Humans often cheer when we see people who we don't consider part of our nation being beaten to death.

Sure. . In order to overide the conscience, we call them nips or krauts. Not ok to kill humans. . . But.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

Not ok to kill humans

Says who? Have you read the Bible? Killing foreigners is not only moral, it is a command from God.

1 Reply

Among higher animals that have fewer offspring there is a biological need for empathy (Darwin raises it's ugly head again). Moreover, animal behaviorists have developed a mathematical model for this empathy that is somewhat correlated to genetic relationship. For instance empathic sacrifice is twice as string for your progeny as it is for your siblings progeny.

In other words, empathy is strongest within your immediate family as it is for your cousins--then your relations, then the tribe, then the city and so on.

So if your enemy has no relation it is easy to suppress biological empathy.

Rap

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Were it only so simple

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I am not sure if you are getting my point. The point is that violence and hatred are just as much human nature as empathy is. If you are going to make a human nature based argument about morality, then violence and hatred are no less moral than empathy is (since they are just as much part of human nature).

You are absolutely right. I probably should have said human nature instead of morality when described xenophobia overriding empathy. Yes, we are by nature at times violent. I think we evolved those characteristics for survival. In the primitive world, although you wanted to cooperate with your tribe (recprical altruism), at times it simply came down to kill or be killed. Today, I don't think ones own morals should be solely based on our natural instincts like xenophobia. An analogy is with food labeling. They put "all natural" on a label to mislead us into thinking the contents of the food are automatically healthy. Snake venom is all natural, but it isn't healthy. Just because we evolved a certain nature doesn't mean it's good and acceptable just because that's the way we evolved to think, react, feel etc. Luckily, we evolved a large enough prefrontal cortex that we can ponder the moral consequences of our natural instincts rather than be automatically swayed by them like other animals. Because of that we have philosophy, religion, and the discussion we are having right now, to ponder what is right what is wrong. Natural doesn't always mean better.

1 Reply

@raprap,

Quote:

Among higher animals that have fewer offspring there is a biological need for empathy (Darwin raises it's ugly head again). Moreover, animal behaviorists have developed a mathematical model for this empathy that is somewhat correlated to genetic relationship. For instance empathic sacrifice is twice as string for your progeny as it is for your siblings progeny.

In other words, empathy is strongest within your immediate family as it is for your cousins--then your relations, then the tribe, then the city and so on.

So if your enemy has no relation it is easy to suppress biological empathy.

Rap

Yes, I completely agree with you. I have a textbook on evolutionary psychology that delves into this. I believe it is called inclusive fitness.

0 Replies

@neologist,

Quote:

a mathematical model for this empathy that is somewhat correlated to genetic relationship.

Quote:

Were it only so simple

Notice he used the word correlated. It can be described by a mathematical equation as a correlation. Are you not more inclined to help a brother or sister than a cousin? A cousin than a stranger?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I think there is more to people than what is displayed for all to see (intentions, feelings, thoughts). I believe evil exists. There are people who secretly enjoy to manipulate a situation to cause harm to another. Simply because a behavior is collectively adopted by a society doesn't make it not evil...example the Holocaust. You can explain and rationalize why they felt justified to cause such great suffering . No rationale can change the fact that it was evil. Right and wrong exist.

1 Reply

@Jpsy,

Quote:

Today, I don't think ones own morals should be solely based on our natural instincts like xenophobia.

OK then, the question of this thread is what should morals be based on. If they are not based on our natural instincts, then what else is there?

How do you determine what is right or wrong?

Your example of food labeling is interesting one because "healthy" actually does have an easy way to distinguish "right" (what makes me live longer and get sick less) from "wrong". With moral questions, there is no easy way to distinguish between the two which is why even two moral absolutists will have contradictory opinions on moral issues.

2 Replies

@Germlat,

Quote:

Simply because a behavior is collectively adopted by a society doesn't make it not evil.

Ok then, what does make it evil? And when people think that what you are doing is evil, what do they have to do to get you to change your mind?

0 Replies

@Jpsy,

I have no idea who wrote:

a mathematical model for this empathy that is somewhat correlated to genetic relationship.

I wrote:

Were it only so simple

Jpsy wrote:

Notice he used the word correlated. It can be described by a mathematical equation as a correlation. Are you not more inclined to help a brother or sister than a cousin? A cousin than a stranger?

Try to get the sources of your quotes right. I posted only the second citation in a response to max's allegations about God.

I contended in several previous posts that humans are created with an inborn conscience that impeaches us at the thought of killing humans, thereby making it OK to kill nips, krauts, etc.

Max responded, as could be expected, that the God of the Old Testament repeatedly sanctioned killing, especially of the Canaanites.

Not so simple, I replied.
First of all the commandment is "You must not murder" (Exodus 20:13)
Secondly, consider the religious practices of the dispossessed nations which included child sacrifice. They had a particularly detestable way of performing this, placing the infant (up to 3 years of age) in the outstretched arms of molech so that gravity would deposit the screaming child into the sacrificial fire. This ceremony would be accompanied by singing and loud music to prevent the screams from reaching the ears of grieving parents.

I don't question the destruction of these 'civilizations'. And, if any lament the demise of some who may have been innocent, including the children, the scriptures contain a promise that all those who never knew the true God will have a second chance at life. See John 5: 28, 29 and Act 24:15. Yes, that may even include the perpetrators.

0 Replies

I'll say it again, moral relativity is the easy way out. Anything that makes you uncomfortable can be excused and then nothing has to done about it.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

Moral relativity is not the easy way out. Moral relativity requires the courage to take responsibility for your own morality without blaming it on a deity.

Believing in God is the easy way out. If you have people (speaking on behalf of a deity) who tell you what is right or wrong, then you don't have to think for yourself.

Religion is the easy way out.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Moral relativity is not the easy way out. Moral relativity requires the courage to take responsibility for your own morality without blaming it on a deity.

That's a good thing. God probably wouldn't be happy with you condoning murder and ignoring the problem by doing so.

And what responsibility is needed cowardly indecision? None.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

Again with the unintentional irony. I love you, man!

This thread was started as a discussion about why the hateful bigotry against Muslims on this forum is immoral. There is no indecision there, I have stated unequivocally that it is immoral.

We are just discussing why hateful bigotry is immoral. I suspect that a loving and just God would be opposed to hateful bigotry, but I think morality should be based on more than that.

1 Reply

Moral Relativity: Where moral values come from?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know