The Chrisitian philosopher, C.S. Lewis, backed his claim of God’s existence through our moral codes. He said that there are universal ethics that seem to be designed into us. All of us know it without being taught?
Isn’t it possible that the way our codes came about was the same as the social contracy theory? Or does our moral codes need to be of divine origin? What do you think?
“Compassion is the basis of morality”
–Arthur Schopenhauer
Goes right back to Plato I suppose who thought they were a “memory” from a previous existence of the soul. My current line is that there may be some “weak”, built in innate ideas but that social interaction is the key.
Certainly the idea of “fairness” seems to come to children a lot faster then walking or even talking - so some ethics may come “bundled”!
But ethics are always up for debate and discussion and I know mine have changed radically over the years - I do recall being an genuine, complete pacifist at one stage - but no more!
One pub (internet!) argument won’t change your moral position but the experinces life hands out to you often do…
Krossie
Conscience should be the basis of morality.
Raul - conscience is the result of morality.
I don't know that there needs to be any one way our codes come about. For someone, they may follow the ethics they do because they think that God directs them to do so. Some others may follow the law, out of fear or love for authority.
One thing I will say is that social contract theory cannot solve the questions of ethics, it can only push them back a bit. It [i]may be[/i] that people do the things they do because these are the best things to do in order for our societies to survive. However, then these behaviors are not moral, they are merely practical. The fact remains, that we consider someone who adheres to these practicalities to be a [i]good person[/i]. When you think of someone as a good person, do you mean only to say that they are an effecient person, a person that knows his place in the societyal machine, or do you mean something more? If you mean something more, than you still have the moral question right in front of you: Why is following the social contract [i]good[/i]?
In my case, I cannot deny that when I think of someone (or some action) as good or evil, there is a value judgement there. When I think ‘good’, I am not thinking ‘useful’ or ‘subservient’ or ‘benefitting the group rather than the individuals’, though I may acknowledge at once that to be all of those things is good.
Schopenhaur has the most logical stace on morality in my opinion. Nietzche had the right idea but in the wrong context. The will to power is the governing force of morality. For the individual, there is no higher calling. But, the will cannot be satisfied and leaves us in torment. The only way to perserve morality and satisfy life is to shed the confines of the physical will, the will of apperception. Schopenhaur, while developing Kant, concluded that the metaphysical is a shared phenomenon. The mind has its own will to power. By helping society, u advance the metaphysical will to power. The body is the will objectified and must take part in the collective will to power. This belief presearves morality in the conventional sense, only the means for finding morality differs from that of religion and objective moral philosophy.
People need to trust one another, to some practical degree, to live together. The reason we do live together is security, broadly defined. Trust, reliability, security - these are required for social arrangements. Morality is complex, but its origins are clear. The life- and limbsaving admonitions of our parents - “Don’t strangle your sister!” are the basis for morality. The family unit represents “living together” in its most basic form. It is all pragmatic rule-making. How pragmatic depends on who you’re talking to. Kant made morality a joke - but my mother never read Kant. Mom only trusts us to play nice together after we know the rules. She needs to teach us those rules, so she has time to tend the garden or to get her nails done.
Philosophers did not invent morality, nor could they. Moms did.
faust
So im guessing you are a moral relativist. Certainly your mother taught u differently than Anton LaVey teaches his son (haha i just found out his name is Satan LaVey). Is there no objectivity? Is morality some sort of maternal burden? JK on that last question
Asbelow - a moral relativist I am not. I am talking about morality in very general terms. I do not believe that any moral code is as good as the next. People need to get around - someone invented the automobile. We know its basic purpose. There are many to choose from - they are not each as good as the next.
Conscience is more abstract than morality. We might be doing what is to society is morally acceptable but our conscience would tell us otherwise.
Raul - we feel “conscience” because we have been taught moral rules. Any moral rules. We may outstrip our contemporaries in moral development, but it’s all the same game. There is a difference between the very general notion of “morality” and any specific manifestation of it. It is likely that no moral system ever had complete compliance - either unanimous subscription nor universal understanding of what the moral system requires. Conflicts are inevitable. Your statement that conscience is more abstract than is morality seems neither to connect with your elaboration nor to make any sense on its own. Feelings that we have - can physically feel, are by definition more “real” than a conceptual construction like morality. Seems you and I see things directly oppositely.
faust
From what I’ve read I would say I’m not really sure where morality ‘came’ from in the intellectual sense. I see it as a derivative of consciousness, closely linked with our temporal perception. Morality is the glue that holds together our actions and memories of such; it is the eventual result of our tendency as humans to group and categorize information. While metaphysical, I would claim it directly stems from biological.
So how do you lay down your moral rules? From thin air? I’d say man sensed right from wrong based on what he feels and then created logical constructs out of them. Feeling… thoughts… morality.
To me, the origins of morality are out of basic evolutionary functioning; how homo-sapiens act towards one another to maintain stability. Essentially that is what civilization is for; to maintain order and stability. Morality goes hand-in-hand with that stability.
i do not believe that morality is universally divine, those concepts are extremely narrow to me and blatantly not true when taking into account mans basic nature for survival.
for instance, if human morality is universally divine, then would not these ideas of good and evil be predisposed upon birth?
the phenomon of feral children disproves that.
it is not human nature that adherently or, by inheritance, posseses morality or a conscience or the basic knowledge of “right” from “wrong” because if a human being is born into a non-human, or non-societal environment it does possess this knowledge.
Raul - it has been done “from thin air”, most notably in the Old Testament.
But not really.
Generally, morality has a purpose. And so, ideally, its purpose should be that of its creator. Often it is. Best to think of morality’s conceptual genesis, and not its temporal evolution, to understand this point. We learn the basics, the very basics, from our parents (those who rear us). Basic do’s and don’ts that will save our lives and promote safety, health, the family property, and so on. We can’t have junior lying to us - he lacks judgement, and so lying might cause the loss of his life, a sibling’s, family property, all manner of bad stuff. You can see that lying is interwoven with stealing, health (remember some of the Commandments past the first ten) -and other moral issues.
The organisation of humans into groups that have as a purpose certain functions - childrearing, food acquisition, protection - families, tribes, clans, nations - you get it, I’m sure - this requires certain rules that allow the members to rely upon each other without direct supervision. This process can be, and certainly has been, perverted from its original course - notably by the religious castes of certain societies. This may not destroy a given moral system - it may remain functional, but it is likely to promote the gross misunderstanding that morality is somehow an absolute idea. Religious castes are often charged with the kind of social rules that cannot readily be enforced by laws - laws can have a moral element, and do - but it is a question of enforcement - guilt works pretty well.
Exigency, expediency, purpose, utility - every other human invention speaks to these. Morality is no different. Some rules work better than others. Trial and error plays the major part. The rules of footballl weren’t invented out of thin air - a rule against saying “I am a goody goody girl” upon scoring a goal has not been established. The need hasn’t really been felt, I’d guess. The rules, more or less, fit the activity, suit the purposes of rules for that game. We seem to manage. Yes - the rules are made up, but not from thin air. There is a lot between dogma and anarchy, between Truth and nihilism.
That last, I get tired of saying. Oh, well.
fausty
Im talking about right wrong action. You are using good and bad as a measure of worth. If you believe any moral code is as good as the next then you are a moral relativist by definition. I would even go as far to say subjectivist, if i was only given your previous statement. It seems your analogy with autombiles applies to aesthetics not ethics.
Though a Christian as well as a big C.S. Lewis fan, I have to disagree with him on this one. I don’t believe it’s the universial aspect of morality that validates God, but the definition of it. Scientifically, feelings such as consciousness and guilt origin from experiance. Experiance in which stems from social expectations.
Tribes such as the Aztecs, saw nothing wrong with taking a virgins heart, because of their social expericance. They believed that it was the correct way to behave in order to please their gods. However, if the Abrahamic concept of “God” exists, than this act is a horriable, repulsive, and ungodly ritual. And if there is no God or gods, than the act is simply unimportant and of no significance.
“God”, is the principle which has the authority to define what is “right” or “wrong”.
asbelow - I really don’t know what you are talking about here - you mean if I find two moral codes that I cannot rank relative to each other, then I am a moral relativist? And that I am talking about styling when I am talking about autos? Dude, just what are you talking about? I am talking about function - “good” and “bad” are certainly measures of worth, yes. Where did I say all this? Every evaluation that uses thje word “good” is not a moral one. We use that word for lots of things. Settle down - you’re babbling.
faust
Faust, are you a Christian? Just curious…