18
   

Define Morality

 
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2015 08:34 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
For example, if you ever find yourself in Yemen and you meet a child bride who wants out, whom does your "strong moral code" compel you to side with? Do you side with her because your strong, but American moral code demands that you protect children and respect females? Or do you side with her fiance because you respect Yemeni culture?


The difference between a moral relativist and a moral absolutist is the mythological belief that there is some universal truth behind their moral code. You don't need universal truth to have a moral code.

I have a moral code (which is very similar to that of everyone who lives in a modern Western cultural context) that will compel me to act in situations that I feel strongly about. I would feel strongly compelled to stop a rape or murder (assuming I had the ability) even if it was morally sanctioned in whatever context I found myself in.

In cases where a culture is functional but but awkward, I would feel obligated to not interfere. I am very uncomfortable with the US using morality as a justification for military domination of other cultures.

Sure... these two things sometimes contradict each other.

The point being that I can live and act according to a moral code without believing that everyone is bound by the same code.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2015 08:45 am
@maxdancona,
Political freedom in Vietnam may be low but like China, Vietnam today has a thriving economy and is a beacon of stability for the region. Vietnamese people are generally free from want and from foreign domination. You see, freedom is indeed relative to something one most want to be free of. Foreign domination aka colonialism is something the Viets are currently free of, because they badly wanted to be free of it... Doesn't mean they don't value politically freedom. They'll get to it. Somewhat similarly, the US fought for independence before civil rights.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  4  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2015 11:46 am
@maxdancona,
Lots of words, but none of them answers my question. Do you side with the child bride or with her fiance? Would you at least ask her if she considers Yemeni culture to be functional?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2015 12:46 pm
@Thomas,
I thought I already answered this. I find the practice of child brides to be immoral and troubling. It is immoral to force someone to marry, especially when they are children who can't speak for themselves.

How can I be any more clear than that?
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2015 02:02 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
No Neo...what was meant as figure of speech for comparison there was that when you introduce a moral principle that works well in one ecosystem into another without looking to local conditions at large you might get a problem instead of sorting the problem you were trying to address...this is not to mean that morality is relative but again that morality is complex. How was that hard to miss I wonder ? Are you tired ? I mean it is late here in Europe but back there must be early in the evening still no ? . . .
Thanks for your concern with my mental state.
Now, back to the toad:
Can anyone state the moral principle that appled to the cane toad in South America and (not really so well) in Hawaii and how it might have been misapplied to Australia?

Or, are you simply stating the intellectual arrogance on the part of the Australian cane growers was immoral? I would agree with you if that's the case.

But then it is not the circumstance that defines morality. Rather, the concept of morality should be realized as the underlying principle.
Thomas
 
  4  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2015 02:06 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
I thought I already answered this. I find the practice of child brides to be immoral and troubling. It is immoral to force someone to marry, especially when they are children who can't speak for themselves.

But what about child marriage being an integral part of Yemeni society and Yemeni morality? How does your judgment that child marriages are immoral coexist with your moral relativism and your respect for Yemeni morality being different from your American morality?

maxdancona wrote:
How can I be any more clear than that?

Now that you're addressing the issue, you're sounding pretty clear. You're also sounding pretty inconsistent with moral relativism.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2015 06:12 pm
@neologist,
Moral needs to FACTUALLY produce efficient group cooperation through social bounding in order to serve its purpose correctly. This of course requires a compromise with stupidity. Moral operates in practical scenarios not in Heaven...ideal behaviour has nothing to do with the purpose of Moral. Moral is not an end in itself but a tool of natural selection.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2015 06:17 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I'm confused. Why are you using the word 'moral' as a noun?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2015 06:20 pm
@neologist,
In Portuguese we say Moral not Morality. So just skip it...
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2015 06:43 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Oh, OK
Now that I take your ESL into account, I can understand you better
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Moral needs to FACTUALLY produce efficient group cooperation through social bounding in order to serve its purpose correctly.
Then, a simple question would be "what is the purpose of morality?"
You wrote:
This of course requires a compromise with stupidity.
So, only those of sufficient mental acuity may understand morality? I believe I have noted the inclination of this idea towards authoritarianism -a state of affairs not unlike that of 1000s of years of priesthood.
You wrote:
. . . ideal behaviour has nothing to do with the purpose of Moral. Moral is not an end in itself but a tool of natural selection.
I think I get it. Morality is not defined by the ideal, but by the expedient. Therefore, morality is relative. Have I correctly identified your thesis?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2015 06:45 pm
A couple of things:

Most adults are children. They stop mentally growing around 12...
In certain countries people die in average at 40. They have to grow up fast and be productive while they have energy...
Finally I don't debate History if I believe in cause and effect. History is FACT !
Ought righteousness always points to lack of insight...
Accepted social behaviour is always optimal according with the "landscape limitations". I am pretty sure in pre history children wouldn't wait till they were around 18 to start working and help out the tribe survive...now, should we judge them as child slavers ?
...dear Lord what has the modern world come into...excess of information in thick single minded heads has brought up the cheer splendour of human stupidity into a all new level !
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2015 06:46 pm
I think 'morals' works just as well as 'morality' much/most of the time. Not that I've looked into it.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2015 07:04 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Most adults are children. They stop mentally growing around 12...
It is a fact that half of all adults fail to reach triple digit IQ. So, how high should one's IQ be to qualify as a morality standard setter?
Will my Mensa level IQ suffice?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2015 08:21 pm
@neologist,
It is a spectrum. The average of a spectrum is what it is and it leads to average understandings of what ought to be done to improve social bounds so people can collaborate to be productive. The specific efficiency coming out of this average understanding is dependent on a vast plethora of factors, from the local physical environment to the particulars of the human culture including gathering critical social mass for having enough scholarly leadership to retro feedback to society a more abstract set of rules in order to improve the group general quality of life. Ethics, Moral, Law, being the standard examples. With those in place you get set on a loop for a more efficient society that in turn pushes even further on the ideal conditions for intellectual progress. This loop is what we call the march of civilization. Morality is the oil preventing the engine from blowing apart...without it the average individual monkey in all of us reverses to anarchy and disorder in weeks...

Morality doesn't exist because of any damned ideal paradise worth existing in this Universe...Nature couldn't care less with quiet nice environments for the sake of nicety or good...if anything nature's chemistry is found of dynamics and big blow ups...simply put, morality is a tool born out of natural selection which effectively uses the common good to assure the survival of the group. It works ! Its no different from gathering up transistors closer together in a better computer chip...when the survival of the group does not require further cooperation, then playing nice stops immediately...the value of goodness is vital for us but not intrinsic on itself. What works, is what unfolds and that with all the bumps in the road is what is good.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2015 08:47 pm
To say something meaningful on the distant origin of Moral gets us back to Gravity which exists in order to save in energy transactions between things...as usual, efficiency is at centre stage...that's what perfection means.
Understanding information is understanding infinitely distant stuff from other stuff, does infinitely nothing. Communication from rocks to people to cities requires bounding. And coupling requires sintony.

By the way the function of decay, the 2 law of thermodynamics, is to provides us a challenge such that brains are required...the "devil" is very much necessary if you want stuff like Mozart's showing up...a perfectly balanced Universe would be frozen in a perfect equilibrium of energy without matter even forming...no gravitas, no "love", no bounding...you need imperfection, precarious equilibrium to have complexity and diversity in the world (Universe)...a perfect world is a world full of bumps not flat land.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2015 09:07 pm
Now here is an interesting sentence for the 1%...

Politics is proof morality has no intrinsic value !
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2015 09:59 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
As I see it political struggle pursues interests in the guise of pursuing values.
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2015 10:21 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
Now that you're addressing the issue, you're sounding pretty clear. You're also sounding pretty inconsistent with moral relativism.

I'm glad you've taken up this line of inquiry, Thomas, and I'm somewhat surprised that Max is actually responding to you. As you might have noticed, he stopped responding to my posts. I've learned, from past encounters on this board, that when Max is boxed into a logical corner, he runs and hides. He has done it to me, and I expect that he will sooner or later do it to you too.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2015 05:06 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Oh, OK
Now that I take your ESL into account, I can understand you better
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Moral needs to FACTUALLY produce efficient group cooperation through social bounding in order to serve its purpose correctly.
Then, a simple question would be "what is the purpose of morality?"
You wrote:
This of course requires a compromise with stupidity.
So, only those of sufficient mental acuity may understand morality? I believe I have noted the inclination of this idea towards authoritarianism -a state of affairs not unlike that of 1000s of years of priesthood.
You wrote:
. . . ideal behaviour has nothing to do with the purpose of Moral. Moral is not an end in itself but a tool of natural selection.
I think I get it. Morality is not defined by the ideal, but by the expedient. Therefore, morality is relative. Have I correctly identified your thesis?


The purpose of morality is explained in almost all my replies...group efficiency at complex tasking. Survival.

Monkeys can understand basic morality but not complex moral dilemmas.
With people there is a spectrum of moral understanding that produces a social average common denominator.

No its not relative. Morality can have an ideal algorithm just as you can imagine an ideal circle...the point was that moral behaviour in practice reflects group limitations and needs.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2015 05:30 am
@JLNobody,
People love to put things in draws n say they have value per se. But reality is a dynamic system made of precarious equilibriums. Most things if not all things work like tools in a process...anything value relates to its degree of need which varies according with the "landscape". Political struggles for power walk alongside with social moral needs...yes often one trumps the other. Fighting for control is no less important then social peace. Why ? Because IQ, wisdom, fitness, is not all the same in the social spectrum. Moreover, flatland, Heaven, is not an interesting place to be.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Relativity of morality - Discussion by InkRune
Killing through a dungeon - Question by satyesu
Morality. - Discussion by Logicus
Creationism in schools - Question by MORALeducation
Morality (a discussion) - Discussion by Smileyrius
Morality Concerning Prostitution - Discussion by brainspew
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Define Morality
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/20/2022 at 06:12:53