Relativity of morality

Setanta, we have a pretty good real issue that illustrates the problem with absolute versus relative morality... namely circumcision.

Some cultures (including that of my ancestors) believed that cutting off a piece of the genitalia of each boy was a moral imperative. Failure to do so would lead to the harshest of social punishment (expulsion from the community).

Some cultures, such as 21st century America, believe that cutting off a part of the genitalia is optional for male infants (at the parents discretion).

And some believe that cutting any part of the genitalia of an infant is morally reprehensible.

This is a real strongly felt moral issue. Some people feel strongly on both sides of the issue.

My belief is that whether this is morally reprehensible or a moral imperative has everything to do with your societal context. There are different social contexts that feel strongly on both sides.

The problem with your solution, Setanta, is this.

All cultures... the ones that support genital mutilation and those that oppose it, went through the same period of evolution. They are both made by humans and enforced by human societies.

So how do you choose? If you are making an argument based on evolution or human nature you fail to make any distinction between one moral system or another.

Once again, you cannot answer criticisms--you simply attempt to divert the discussion. You have not stated in what the contradiction you alleged consists. You have never addressed the issue of the implication of calling for us to "rise above" our evolutionary heritage.

Now you're telling me what "we" are discussing. What about discussing what you, in particular, have said?

Sure, let me give you a couple of example where morality means rising above our evolutionary heritage.

Humans throughout thousands of years of history have been tribal. We stick up for people like us and we act with indifference (or even hostility) toward people around us. Our history is filled with attacking the other, fearing difference, and subjugating other cultures.

My understanding of morality is about overcoming prejudice, trying to be inclusive, understanding other people and defending minorities. This is against our evolutionary history of tribalism as shown throughout history.

Humans have evolved to get revenge when we are wronged. Our natural instinct is to hate those who harm us and strike back, as hard as possible, whenever we can against people we see as enemies.

My understanding of morality includes reconciliation, forgiveness as shown by Dr. King and Ghandi.

In both of these examples (and there are many more) evolution has driven us one way (tribalism and hatred have survival value), but my understand of morality is completely opposite.

This is what I mean by "rise above" our evolved human nature.

You were implying that "what lions do is moral because that is what lions do". This contradicts with you are saying about human behavior.

If you were willing to say "what humans do is moral because that is what humans do", then there would be no contradiction to you argument. But that isn't what you are saying.

If you are making a moral argument based on nature than you need to consistently accept what occurs in nature as moral (that applies for both lion nature and human nature). In my opinion, this is not a valid argument.

If I misunderstood what you said about lions, then please explain why you think that the behavior of lions is moral.

Systems living or otherwise operate in layers. The frame of operation of Lions is naturally justified as is the Human one. But they are not entirely alike. Complexity increases in the human case.

Animal behavior?
Is that morality?
Or instinct?

I mean we don't judge animal aggression by human standards, do we?

Bullshit, i implied nothing of the kind. Furthermore, there was nothing i said about human behavior which contradicts that. You're trippin' . . . lyou should put down the spleef.

Quote the post in which i said that humans do anything for any other reason than what i had to say about all species. You're making it up as you go along. I am making no moral arguments at all. I am contemptuous of the entire concept of morality.

Several pages back, you made this statement. This is the post that started the digression about lions. It seems pretty clear to me what you said.

I answered your question, how about you answering mine

If I misunderstood what you said about lions, then please explain why you think that the behavior of lions is moral? (And then we can discuss whether the same reasoning also applies to humans.)

I have not read the thread but morality is mostly not relative. Morals are based upon good ideas, which can most closely be defined as what works. THe universe not being random nor in constant flux means that morality is stable if it has quality.

As i see it, Set is arguing that there is such a thing as an instinctive basis for morality (call it darwinian morality). And Max says that instinct goes only so far, not all the way, to explain moral systems and values as they exist among humans.

Both are right, of course.

I can accept that Olivier, but I think it is oversimplified.

Moral values that have an instinctive basis are likely to be seen in many if not most cultures throughout human history. There are a few examples. There is tribalism (you take care of people in your ethnic group) and reproduction (you take extra good care of your offspring) and respect for some sort of order (be it a monarch a religious figure or a Constitution).

I don't think there are very many more cases where moral values are seen across cultures. Conversely there are huge areas where cultures diverge on issues of morality.

Humans tend to think that their view of morality (which generally lines up pretty well with their surrounding culture) represents some Universal Truth, be it science or God or some path towards meaning.

But no form of moral absolutism functions without the belief that everyone outside of your culture is wrong. The diversity of human societies is the biggest challenge.

I have no problem with the idea that moral systems are only human. It does not follow IMO that they are all equally worthy and useful. Some are better than others, and in this sense I think there are universal values that humanity collectively aspires to. I've been around, and it's hard to meet with anyone who would not support basic human rights, at least as an ideal.

This is wishful thinking Olivier.

The set of "universal values that humanity collectively aspires to" is awfully small. People have been killing each other and subjugating other ethnic groups for tens of thousands of years-- and almost all of them were perfectly morally justified within their own cultural context. The idea of "human rights" was invented in the past few hundred years and spread to a small subgroup of very similar cultures.

I am not surprised that the people you meet have similar views to you. The people you meet are pretty culturally homogeneous. You haven't met any nomadic raiders, or cannibals, or ancient Romans, or ISIS fighters, or Amazonian tribes people. You hang out mainly with people in a 21st century Western cultural context.

Look at the diversity of humanity through history. Most of humanity supported slavery (I suspect you have ancestors who felt owning slaves was morally justified as I did). Cutting of parts of genitalia of boys was mandated by some cultures. So was arranged marriages and polygamy and forced euthanasia of the elderly... the range of human cultures is immense.

You need to define what you mean by "basic human rights". However you define this, I bet it would be pretty easy to find history cultures, and even modern cultures,, that don't support these rights outside of their own ethnic group.

In a global economic system we can't afford to not have global international rules. None of us...I am curious to see how long and what it will take till people realise this is mandatory. Perhaps I wont see it in my life time but it will come.

So we have a world where Western Cultural (from the US and Western Europe) values being forced on all other cultures using a combination of military and economic pressure. This doesn't mean that Western cultural values are any better... it just means that we have the military and economic might to punish anyone who resists.

This is why cutting the genitals of male infants is completely acceptable where any cutting of the genitals of female infants is met with horror (and economic sanctions and even military force).

Even though my culture is the dominant world culture and that the values being stuffed down the throats of everyone world wide are my values... I still feel a little uncomfortable with this process.

I would sure hate to be on the other side (and have someone else's values forced on me).

I've actually met with quite a few nomadic raiders and my fair share of Islamist radicals. You'd be surprised at the level of agreement you can reach with such people, at least at the level of broad principles.

And most of humanity nowadays does not, so there is a convergence. Even those rare countries where slavery is still practiced have laws on the books banning it.

No there is not a "convergence". There is a dominant culture. The world-wide culture is dominated by Western European (and American) values. It is being spread by Coca-Cola and enforced by economic sanctions and drone strikes.

We are the major power, and so we are pushing our values on everyone else. Incidentally this is not the first time this has happened in history. When our time is over, and the next cultural hegemon takes control... the worldwide view on morality and human rights will be markedly different than it is now.


I am curious about how you met with nomadic raiders...

...oh boy are you going to be surprised one of these mornings...
Yours and my culture are the drunk bankrupt cultures quickly being replaced while the party keeps rolling. We will never know what hits us...

True, but the two things are related. The convergence around western values is due to western dominance, but in turn such dominance illustrated or evidenced that western value systems were more efficient than others. The reason why so many people look up to the west is precisely because we are richer and freer than they are.

I'm aware that the rise of China makes a dent in western dominance, although they have also imported western values systems.


I've travelled professionally to Afghanistan, Karamoja (northern Uganda), South Sudan and Somalia... I know Afghanistan pretty well, in particular. It's a totally different culture but then, not so different after all, once you dig a little.

Hmmm Olivier,

The dominant culture will always be richer... but let's talk about freer (ignoring for the moment the Wests history of subjugation and slavery).

Freedom is a Western value (at least the obsession with freedom that we have). There have been several dominant cultures in the past that did not have freedom (i.e. individual freedom) as a value (I would list Rome, ancient China, biblical Israel as examples, the Incas and many others as examples).

If in the future the dominant culture doesn't have freedom as a principle value, will you change your mind and decide that freedom isn't so important after all?

(after reading this again... I realized that wealth and power are the real universal values. I don't know whether we can consider these "moral" values).