As in, do you believe there exists definitely righteous/evil actions? Do you believe morality can be determined through science, logic and philosophy? Or are we just primates deceived by our inner yearning(that is, our brains) for “justice” into believing some actions truly “ought to” be done, when there exists no such thing. I’m not asking for a rigorous answer to this question as I understand the difficulty in answering such fundamental questions – there is an active tug-of-war between the greatest minds in science, philosophy and theology as to the nature of morality.
Personally I’m split on the matter – partly because I’m a largely scientific thinker, and I believe science can answer all questions concerning material reality – assuming they can be answered. Morality, if it exists, would presumably be immaterial as its effects(if there are any), aren’t observable anywhere in the universe. I believe things on the basis of the proof we have for their existence, and producing proof for something immaterial that imparts upon an objectively true standard of living would very difficult, if possible. I think the way we feel about something says nothing about whether or not that thing exists(unless that thing is the feeling itself i.e Love).
But living free of moral convictions poses many serious threats… primarily, apathy to generally undesirable things such as human suffering and pain lies at the foundation of many destructive personalities(serial killers, rapists etc.). I regard myself as a very kind person because I’m unable to escape the conviction that something really ought to be done – even though that make no sense under the assumption that morality is an illusion. That’s what keeps me on the fence, and it’s certainly affecting my decision to either live or commit suicide.
Like I said, I’m just looking for some thoughts, whether or not they’re “backed up”. I’m at liberty to defend my thoughts in the instance that someone challenges them, but I honestly feel so shitty today – and my last intention is to start arguing on a forum full of compassionate people.
– T.M.
9 comments
I forgot to mention that the answer is obvious if you’re religious. I happen not to be.
We’re just intelligent animals, along for the ride. Nothing more, nothing less. We can look for all the answers we want, but in the end, it’s all just hope for one idea or another. I’m in a pretty shitty mood at the moment, so take from that what you will or just ignore it completely.
No. I don’t believe in God or these spirits roaming around that are meant to be controlling everything. Humans don’t have the authority to create these rules (because that would be subjective) and they need God to say “fuck you that’s fucking wrong” or “You get gold star for good behaviour”.
The people before us thought they figured out the difference between right and wrong so they wrote it down. We then follow what they had to say and sometimes amend them in accordance with what society believes is morally acceptable at the time. If a rule is created by another person and we simply follow it contrary to our own beliefs isn’t that a form of objective morality?
No. Personally, I don’t believe there is any universal code or system of morality. Is there such a thing as good and evil, right and wrong? Yes, but only the good and evil created and defined by humanity. Which is, of course, very tangled and complicated. We are naturally inclined to find certain things…offensive, unpleasant. Murder, rape, stealing… humanity as a whole tends to frown upon these things because of basic fear and sympathy. We would not want these things to happen to us or the people who are important to us, so we define these actions as evil and generally look down on them.
Of course, as you pointed out, this viewpoint poses some problems. If there is no “true” moral code, what’s to stop someone from doing absolutely anything they want? The law, obviously, and natural design. But if you can transcend those barriers? Then absolutely nothing.
No matter who you are, whether that be a nice guy who gives to charity or a serial killer, you operate on an entirely selfish basis. You do what makes you feel good, or what makes you feel better about yourself. It’s just the way nature operates. There may be a couple of slight exceptions, all explainable with other biological functions. Nature has done a good enough job at designing human beings to be sympathetic and compassionate towards each other. But it’s still a very, very competitive design. So, with this in mind, what if what makes a person feel good is rape, or murder? Who’s to say they shouldn’t? Well, I really don’t know. If they’re willing to accept the earthly consequences of those actions then…they’re going to do it. And that’s that. That’s the harsh reality of it.
Morality is what we make it. It shifts depending on where you are in the world, and who you ask. A design of nature and society, just like everything else. The bottom line, I’d say, is the first sentence in snuffles post here.
No, because people in China can eat dogs, but we find that to be despicable. The same could be said with murder. Some say murder is wrong, but when it comes to the death penalty, they’re all for it. Just giving some random examples.
I don’t think that objective morality (that is, universal moral codes inscribed into existence that we can all agree on and be compelled to obey) exists.
However, I do have things that I value and, more and more, I am becoming OK with replacing “ought” with “want.” Like you say, not believing in objective morality poses some serious threats like apathy to human suffering. But I don’t need objective morality to be bothered by human suffering. My reaction to human suffering comes from a deep emotional desire that I have to not see other people in pain. This too is a dangerous path because all “wants” are created equal and this means that I have no moral superiority or argument to stop someone from torturing me (although I’d pay someone to kill me painlessly with a gunshot to the cerebellum lol).
“Justice” construed without morality is simply about legally arbitrating who’s wants trump others — in this case, either my desire to not get tortured or the torturer’s desire to gain pleasure from torturing me — in light of some basic agreements on what the purpose of the law is in a non-moral sense. That is, I don’t think we need moral judgements like “Murder is wrong” to outlaw murder. If we can generally agree that we don’t want to live in a society where murder is permissible, that is basis enough for agreeing to outlaw murder. Perhaps deep down, everyone would rather be a tyrant, but that’s too hard for most of us and I think most us would take the second-best option of living in a society that enforces basic laws against murder,stealing, etc.
And also think that I can have values without objective morality, although I can’t expect others to share them. I value things like honesty and courage and love and intelligence. I aspire to have those qualities and I admire people who do have them. Where do these values come from? I suspect they mostly come from society and the zeitgeist although I also believe that I have significant control over value judgements based on my ability to reason for myself. I know for certain that I rejected many of the values that I, at an earlier age, simply inherited from family. But I’ve come to terms with the fact that many of my values are just a product of my times. And yes, that does bother me a little because it means that I am not fully in control of my values plus it means that my values are mine alone and they have no bearing on how others ought to act. Yet I have them, I feel them strongly and I desire to have them/live up to them while I don’t expect others to share them. And that’s enough for me.
With that said, all I want right now is for someone to shoot me in the cerebellum and end my life. I am willing to pay someone to kill me. Neither the law nor most purported codes of morality nor people’s individual values nor their emotional desires are very accommodating to my desire to have someone end my fucking life.
I think Sam Harris addresses this subject in depth in his book “The Moral Landscape”. He goes in depth into how science can detect human values. I have not read it but i’ve seen some of his youtube debates where he references his findings from his research for this book. I’m an atheist so I think religion holds no answer and, in fact, if religion is actually adhered to precisely as written, it is probably the most immoral framework out there.
Generally I think human morality and base values are evolved naturally. “TheRiver” mentioned that some people might “value” murder/rape etc. … but the vast plurality of humans have a visceral reaction of revulsion and disgust to such behavior and I’d argue in our “less civilized” history, the tribe/mob would simply exterminate someone who valued such things to the point of action thus limiting the opportunity for the genetics that carry that “value” system form propagating … natural selection. I think there have been experiments/observation that have determined that chimps exhibit values of fairness for the collective good so it’s not limited to humanity alone.
Bottom line, i think, is that “morality” is inherent and evolved – it’s in us naturally for the benefit of the species.
philosophy dawg
@dawg: Chimps also wage war over sexual partners and territory, and some have been known to rabidly hump each other in displays of homoerotic dominance. They also drink their own pee from time to time. I tend to think values spring from the creative side of the human mind – the part that interprets things and gives meaning to observable phenomenon. The same side of the brain that produced the internal combustion engine and the toaster, which made sliced bread all the more amazing.
We evolved as social animals, which is why we were successful.
Morality, like culture, is a toolbox that hopefully promotes the success of the society we live in, for if that society fails, all fail.
Unfortunately we have all the charlatans that want to hijack those tools for their own ends, which is normally power and control. Most notably religions. This muddies the waters no end, and the result is millions of people agonizing about their ‘sins’ and ending up living in hell.
Basic morals for society are few and simple. Help others, try not to hurt, contribute. This leads to society’s success. The rest are just rubbish, by and large, added by the control freaks.
Morals and culture are not static. They evolve with the environment. With an advancing and more prosperous environment they widen to include more, like the current ‘human rights’ , which I suspect may soon include the right to an iPhone.
This is why there is always a conflict between the older that want to hang on to their morals and culture and expect their kids to be the same. The kids can’t, the environment has changed. The tools to survive successfully must change.
But like all things in the universe, nothing goes up in a straight line. Cycles. Come serious overpopulation, food and water shortage, climate change, we will regress in our morals. We will have to in order to survive.