Throughout all of moral and ethical philosophical discourse there is the notion that somehow human beings are moral and ethical creatures seperated from the rest of earthly existence.
Here in this thread I am bringing doubt and skepticism to that position with a very simple question.
In what way exactly are human beings moral or ethical?
For the position that human beings are moral or ethical creatures that they claim to be I want some evidential outlines.
Enough of the pretensious labels being thrown around!
I think that by now everybody knows that humans are capable of inflicting infinitely more cruelty than other animals. Morality is probably only a tool to help us through existence despite this quality.
That doesn’t mean morality is useless or meaningless though, on the contrary. But I’d say the need to have official moralities imposed by institutions, states, churches, reflects a lack of self-control.
In the end it’s probably a result of power. Since we’ve invented weaponry we’re too powerful for our own good, and that’s why we’ve created artifices such as morality.
Well, what evidence are you expecting? The evidence is all arround you really.
Most people living in groups want at least some order in their group. They certainly don’t want a totally chaotic enviroment where everyday is a free for all fight of everybody against everybody. They want behaviour of groupmembers to be predictable to some extend. And moral rules are agreed on or forced upon the group, whatever you want to call it, to that end.
Of course the oppressing upper social classes don’t want that. They want only predictable obedience instead making it easier for everybody to control and manage.
There is no mutual social contract. It’s forced upon. It’s enforced and imposed by whatever group is in control.
You keep trying to change the discussion, whether or not it’s a failure, or it’s stupid, or it’s the ruling class that’s doing it,…a lot of people want and get moral rules.
I don’t agree btw that it’s all failure, or that only the ruling classes are benifitting… i just won’t agrue it here, because it’s just not all that relevant to the topic.
It’s precisly because people think not everybody will act “morally” left to their own devices, that people want moral rules.
Are humans good?
or
Do humans have ethical and moral beliefs/systems?
It seemed like the former question.
To which my answer would be: they are a mix.
To the second question my answer would be: yes. Pretty much all of them. These ethics and morals vary widely.
I see other animals as having moral systems, certainly the social mammals, predators that pack hunt and have communal lives and also herd prey animals.
You can’t escape reality. Morality is a way of giving a certain shape to it.
Apparently it isn’t useless to all actuality, it has survived so far.
It can only be killed by something stronger. Indifference and scepsis are weaker, less “actual” forces than the will to control
Entropy, dissolution. In Human terms, the stuff that goes on when they find a resource in Africa.
If you like all that, there’s always the third world. I agree that the entropy we create is catching up with us, but that’s a given. Not something we need to explain or proclaim as if it is some kind of admirable honesty.
But the institutions themselves do not matter. It is their control that is important to the people who give their lives to the institutions in order to make their morals believable to themselves.
Where do you mark the border between morality and habit?
Evolution selects tendencies. Morality is tendency of the mind.
It accomplishes a certain kind of man.
This man is not worth a lot to you, and you are part of it. So I think your perspective is simply eliminating your responsibility for you, and this is necessary to become a plant again.
Hasn’t evolution told us why people are moral? What about the fact that some moral codes are observed in every culture etc… There are two kinds of morality, those which came before language and those which came after. The former morality is called “moral dumbfounding” and this is why you may feel disguisted towards something but not know why. That is observer too ( as far as I know ) in all cultures. If all morals were subjective then why do all cultures agree on them?
People say that morality and ethics is prevalent in human cultures yet these same cultures tolerate various social inequalities or social oppressions that makes the whole stance seem entirely contradictive. Why the contradictions?
How can morals or ethics exist and yet also be entirely contradictive in many instances existing?
Either human beings are moral and ethical or they’re simply not. If they’re not we must then ask why does there exist such fanciful pretensions in trying to pretend to be.
Is it a psychological defence mechanism of some sort deeply rooted in collective social denial?
I want somebody to explain this to me.
I’m betting the typical reply here will be that human morality or ethics isn’t perfect.
If it’s imperfect then I see no reason why either belief structures in morality or ethics deserves obedience and strict adherence.
Infact for it’s imperfection in allowing various forms of oppression, tyranny, and social inequalities to exist I think that only rebellion must prevail as inevitable opposition. In otherwords I think morality and ethics as beliefs must be abandoned altogether.
That’s how I interpret things too. That is individual value subjectivism carried to it’s final realization.
However morality and ethics as ideological commandments of the upper social classes that are in power or authority make it their business to tell everybody else what they think they should be doing regardless of their individual personal feelings.
Yes those blindly too ignorant to think and act for themselves want morality or ethics. However there is alot of people on the otherhand that don’t have a use or belief in either but those individuals we don’t hear too much from since many are imprisoned and executed.
Then there are those like myself who would be socially outcasted for mentioning their abandonment where we just keep our thoughts to ourselves in secrecy minus the occasional internet rant.
You may say alot of people want such things instituted but there is also alot of those who don’t.
For me it’s simple. I deny the existence of morals and ethics altogether as existing. Various contradictions and errors of both ideologies has led me to this realization.
No? What do you think anyways?
I think it is very relevant to the current topic. Why are you trying to dodge things here?
What inherent “right” do they have to control everybody’s elses actions and behaviors in predictable oppressive social uniformity?
The wording of this question doesn’t make a whole heap of sense to me, but we are “moral” insofar as we deem it so.
We wish to be moral for many reasons:-- we share compassion, are naturally relational, social, and pragmatic, are motivated by hope and fear, etc.
I suppose the best answer to you question that I can come up with is that we are “moral” or “ethical” because we concern ourselves with the welfare of others. And the capacity for that concern is a wholly natural, or ‘organic’, part of the human condition.
No, it’s not exactly total moral or value subjectivism because there are consequences. You may choose to accept those however…
I think there is ample evidence that more people want moral rules than not.
Yeah, morals don’t literally exist, but you can’t deny that people believe in morals and want them enforced. Well, you can, at your own peril…
There are enough example of moral rules that aren’t a failure. “You shall not kill” often works in that there would be more killing if there wasn’t such a rule.
And i believe a lot of people, certainly more than the ruling class alone, benifit from such a rule. Do i really need to prove this? I mean, isn’t this stating the obvious?
I’m not dodging anything. I made the point i think was relevant. The rest is loaded with politics that isn’t all that philosophical, i think.
Why would they need an inherent right to do so?
Isn’t that the glaring contradiction in your position. On the one hand you deny all moral rules, and on the other hand they should have some moral justification (inherent right) to impose moral rules?
Morals and people are not completely logical. Also it is very hard to come up with a set of rules that covers everything and has no contradictions and exceptions.
Even an extremely simple game - compared with life in society - like football/soccer ends up with people feeling they were unfairly treated by the rules, let alone by the reffing.
Because the rules are the creations of different people at various times, trying to manage unbelievably complex societies with words.
It could be seen as practical. Like having traffic signs. No rules/guidelines and you could not count on anything.
These are present in the laws and morals.
Not remotely.
So we should only follow things that are perfect?
Infact for it’s imperfection in allowing various forms of oppression, tyranny, and social inequalities to exist I think that only rebellion must prevail as inevitable opposition. In otherwords I think morality and ethics as beliefs must be abandoned altogether.
