|
Post by Josh on Feb 19, 2007 7:42:55 GMT -8
Morality as Social Convention?
Beyond "instinctual" or "herd" morality built into our basic genetic make-up, humans have the capacity to think and philosophize about morality and create their own systems of morality- social conventions based on certain insights.
Both Christians and atheists would agree that there is a component of "social convention" to morality, but many materialists would stop there and say that "herd" mentality and "social convention" can adequately explain morality from an evolutionary perspective.
But if morality can be boiled down to "social convention", some important questions arise. For instance, if morality is simply social convention, how would one go about proving, for example, that Nazi ethics were worse than Germany's current ethics?
Lewis says: "When you think about the differences between the morality of one people and another, do you think that the morality of one people is ever better or worse than that of another? Have any of the changes been improvements? If not, then of course there could never be any moral progress. Progress means not just changing, but changing for the better. If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring... Christian morality over Nazi morality. In fact, of course, we all do believe that some moralities are better than others."
Now, I hope you somehow do believe that some moralities are better than others, but I doubt you will be able to explain why with your belief system. If you think that we are all trapped within our social conventions, the set of values that has been inculcated into us, then why is it that every culture’s beliefs are usually in a constant state of change? Are there things about the current state of morality in this country you'd like to see changed? Yes, I'm sure. So you really aren't as trapped by your social conventions as you'd like to believe. You can think outside of them if you want to. And if you can think morally outside of your cultural milieu, then morality must be more than social convention.
In fact, if Social Conventions are so pervasive and powerful, how did such different ones ever develop? Because people can think morally outside of their social conventions!
I think the idea that morality is put into us by education has it's place, and that is very true to a degree, but nonetheless, our ability to change our minds, to judge our own moral system means we have a sense of morality apart from our education.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 20, 2008 20:06:28 GMT -8
Further thoughts/ questions/ critiques on this. It's too brief, but it's what I've got for now. This is a very big topic, though, so I'm curious on others thoughts about defining morality as social convention.
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 21, 2008 7:27:28 GMT -8
But if morality can be boiled down to "social convention", some important questions arise. For instance, if morality is simply social convention, how would one go about proving, for example, that Nazi ethics were worse than Germany's current ethics? It can’t be proved. This is just a matter of opinion. We both agree that our morals are better than the Nazi-Morals. And the Nazi-Germans thought they were acting truly moral. It’s opinion versus opinion. Goebbels’ wife Magda was even so convinced of the righteousness of National Socialism, that she killed all of her 6 children because “a world without the ‘Führer’ isn’t worth living in”. Or let’s take an up-to-date example of another politician’s wife: Today the widow of Erich Honecker, Margot Honecker (or "the purple Dragon" as she was called), was decorated with a medal in Nicaragua. Margot Honecker was the last First Lady of the former GDR (socialist East Germany). After the downfall of the Berlin wall and the GDR, the Honeckers escaped to socialist South America. If Mrs. Honecker stepped on German Ground today, she would be arrested. Instead, she was honored as a heroine. I repeat: it’s a matter of perspective. Lewis says: "When you think about the differences between the morality of one people and another, do you think that the morality of one people is ever better or worse than that of another? Have any of the changes been improvements? If not, then of course there could never be any moral progress. Progress means not just changing, but changing for the better. If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring... Christian morality over Nazi morality. In fact, of course, we all do believe that some moralities are better than others." Christian Morality vs. Nazi Morality is a funny joke. Most Nazis were Christians. Not only the politicians, but especially the people who loved that system. And the people who took and executed the orders to commit genocide in the concentration camps. Let’s not forget about the role of the church during National Socialism. Lewis has no right to separate Nazi Morality from Christian Morality. He can only say that according to his OPINION it isn’t Christian Morality but the facts don’t bear him out there. The motif of the Jews as the Messiah-killers was ever repeating in the Nazi propaganda. And just think of the Ku Klux Klan. It’s specifically Christian. Not to forget all the crimes of the crusades and the Holy Inquisition. No Sir, this line of argumentation doesn’t work. There is no basis for saying Christian morality is better than any other morality. Now, I hope you somehow do believe that some moralities are better than others, but I doubt you will be able to explain why with your belief system. You’re totally wrong. I can perfectly explain why I prefer certain values over others within my belief system. I believe in life. It’s the only observable purpose of life: Life! In all variations. The more versatility there is, the better for the spread of life. Hence, killing people, wiping out entire races is not only morally wrong according to our actual social conventions, but also biologically wrong. I prefer living in a democracy because it allows me more possibilities to pursuit my happiness. I dislike violence because I myself want to be free of pain. And so on. Now, if you think that we are all trapped within our social conventions… I don’t believe that. I elaborated why in UM #1 … then why is it that every culture’s beliefs are usually in a constant state of change? I think this is the best proof that the content of morality can’t root in something permanent. And if you can think morally outside of your cultural milieu, then morality must be more than social convention. Social convention is the result of multiple factors. One of them is reason. And reason is always a result of progressing experiences in context with past experinces. What seems right today doesn’t have to seem right tomorrow and the fact that we think it's right today won't hinder us to find out tomorrow that it's actually wrong. Social conventions renew themselves from the inside: they form us and we form them. When we reform them, we always do it under the influence of them (unless we come from another country with different moral values). I think the idea that morality is put into us by education has it's place, and that is very true to a degree, but nonetheless, our ability to change our minds, to judge our own moral system means we have a sense of morality apart from our education. I don’t think you can conclude that. Every view you take on things builds on another. Even if one day you believe the opposite of what you have learned once, this conclusion is the result of a progression of thoughts that started with your education. Experience is the key. Every second that passes offers a new experience. A new perspective. A new angle on which to estimate things. This is where change comes from.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 8, 2008 16:32:02 GMT -8
If it's just a matter of perspective, what right (or sense) do we have to make moral judgments at all? And if it's just a matter of perspective then Magda Goebbels was as justified as anyone else can be morally as long as she was true to her own sense of morality. Do you believe that?
I totally disagree with this assessment, Mo. Yes, most Germans during world war 2 claimed to be Christians. Yet the actions they took in support of National Socialism's evil agendas (and the inaction also to another degree) were de-facto unChristian.
What Lewis is talking about (and I am as well) is the moral system described by the New Testament, not how it's followers fail to live up to it. Christians acting unChristlike can always be judged by the standard of Christ's teaching. But with National Socialism, it was both the moral system and most of its adherents that can be judged equally.
Prefering certain values over others is completely different than believing and articulating that certain values are better than others, which you cannot do from your vantage point.
And furthermore your belief in "life as the highest value" is arbitrary and bound for contradictions*
I agree that reason is surely something to employ in moral questions.
"Seems right" fits your belief system much better than the phrase "actually wrong". You can't even talk about your own perspective without lapsing in to moral absolutes.
Josh wrote:
Mo responded:
The "education" I was talking about here wasn't personal experience- it was more narrowly defined as a moral system handed down to us by others.
It's self-evident that our morality can't be explained totally in terms of "handing down" because at least the very first people to have moral ideas, or new ideas, gained them from some other factor (personal experience, reason, God, or an innate sense).
*such as the fact that in some cases it could be well argued that "life" would be better served by killing some people. We've been down this road before...
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 12, 2008 7:22:25 GMT -8
Josh wrote:
Mo wrote:
That cultural beliefs about morality are in a state of flux doesn't come anywhere near "proof" that their isn't some permanent source of morality.
First off, circumstances change throughout history, prompting new applications of universal moral values. Such changes can produce complicated and confusing situations which are very challenging to apply the moral law toward.
There may be instances where there is a competition between two universal moral values and one culture believes that one value trumps another in certain circumstances. A culture may change their mind on how to prioritize such values.
In addition, cultures may construct moral systems that are simply corrupted due to the influence of greed or fear or excessive pride. Some cultures corrupt universal moral values more than others.
But to say that differences and changes in values systems is some kind of proof that there is no absolute standard is too bold.
|
|
|
Post by deusexmachina on May 8, 2010 14:10:16 GMT -8
Morals are relative. This is true because: (1) Moral and belief systems change. For example, in the 18th century the Christian church had no issue with abortion before "quickening". Most women who got one were married, Christian women who already had children. Today the Christian church (generally) believes that abortions are wrong from the minute sperm meets egg. If morals were universal, then abortion would always have been considered wrong or would still be considered okay. In even more proof that morals are subjective, some Christians today are still pro choice.
(2) Morality is contingent upon the situation. Is it moral to kill someone? By nearly everyone's standard, no. However, is it moral to kill someone who is breaking into your home? What if that person is trying to kill you? What if that person is trying to kill your child? The fact that the morality of something as big as murder can fluctuate through such a wide spectrum is yet more proof that morality is subjective.
(3) Not everyone has a sense of right and wrong. There are estimated to be between 6 and 12 million people in America (an estimated 200 million people world wide) who have absolutely zero sense of conscience, morality, or anything similar-they are called sociopaths (or psychopaths, or people with Antisocial Personality Disorder). The fact that there exist people who have absolutely no sense of right and wrong is enough to suggest that morality is relative/subjective, but when you consider that only about 1-2% of people entirely void of a traditional sense of morality are criminals you can see clearly that morality is determined by society and are not universal.
Morals are subjective from individual to individual yet, while society influences morality, morals are not only a construct of society. As an example, I believe that Christian morals are superior to, say, Voodoo. However Voodoo practitioners believe that theirs is the superior morality system. That's because morals are subjective. The reasoning behind a specific choice in morality is where society comes into play-I did not grow up in a society where Voodoo is widely practiced, but those who did can see the morality infused in it and many exposed to it choose to practice it. The same can be said of Christianity-the majority of the population in America is Christian. It is what we, as a society, are exposed to and most people in this society (persuaded in part by prevailing society-wide convention) choose to become practicing Christians. One Christian may not believe exactly the same as another (individual subjectivity of morals), but as a society Americans embrace general Christian morality (the cultural subjectivity of morals).
To say that morality is universal you are saying that there is only one answer to each question of morality, but if you just look around you can see that there are many many answers to every question. The fact that we have different views alone proves that morality is subjective.
|
|
|
Post by moritz on May 9, 2010 3:02:28 GMT -8
thank you!
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 9, 2010 18:13:00 GMT -8
I look forward to responding to this, exmachina! I just have to recover from my exhausting weekend at the beach first Welcome, btw!
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 9, 2010 19:52:06 GMT -8
Okay, deusexmachina, These "universal morality" posts of mine go in an order, just so you know (don't know if it's obvious or not), so if you want to get the full weight of the argument, be sure to read the "Universal Morality:please read" thread first. Now some responses: Human moral systems change, but that is not proof that there is not a universal morality. Humans are certainly able to get it wrong, and we will never be able to say we have a complete grasp on morality from God's perspetive, but that doesn't mean that God didn't infuse the universe with moral laws. The case you mention above is a case of science aiding us in clarifying our moral positions about the moral law. In an age of scientific ignorance or even misinformation about how a human being comes into existence, it was logical to postulate that life began when a baby could be felt within the womb. However, we now know better, and, I would argue, are better able to approach a verdict on the subject that is more in line with the moral law (that life begins at conception). That moral decisions are contingent upon the situation doesn't diminish a set of moral laws. Moral laws are not absolute statements about what not to do. They are universal values which sometimes come in conflicts which other ones. In your case: the moral value of life comes into conflict with the moral value of protection of life, and one must be chosen over the other- and most cultures, including the Judeo-Christian revelation allow for killing in certain circumstances in which there is a higher moral value at stake. All this means is that a particular moral decision is subjective (to an array of factors), not that morality (the moral laws) itself is subjective. To say that morality itself is subjective would be to postulate that it would be valid for a culture to uphold lying and cheating as a virtue or indiscriminate murder. It would be to say that we cannot judge between any cultural set of moral codes (Nazis included) because we do not have an objective standard by which to judge them. I'd encourage to read UM #1-6 for more on this. C.S. Lewis points this out as well- that there are a minority of people and even cultures which are devoid of a sense of the moral law. However, this is not a proof that morality is subjective. It is just a case of something gone wrong in the humanity of these individuals. A follow up question: would you say that having a conscience is better than not having one? Again, this is not proof that morality is subjective. It's more like evidence that it's not subjective because if it was subjective, you'd be less likely to judge one as better- just like you wouldn't argue with someone who liked a different flavor of ice cream than you. Anyway, I wouldn't rush so quickly to the above conclusion (that all morals are subjective), when your example (Christian vs. Voodoo morality) can be explained other ways. What I'm saying is that I do believe that from God's point of view there is indeed only one answer to each individual* question of morality. And I'm also saying that God has placed within us all a moral sense that can tap (albeit fallibly) into the moral law. Furthermore, He has revealed through His word even clearer expressions and explanations of His moral Law. That fact that there are different views and answers out there doesn't prove morality is subjective. All it proves (or might prove if you disagree) is that we often get the answers wrong or partially wrong. If I'm in math class and some of my kids say that pi equals 2 and some say it equals 3 and some say it equals 3.14 and others say it equals 3.141593, then my conclusion isn't that pi is relative. My conclusion is that some got it totally wrong, others got it mostly right. * and I do mean each individual case. We cannot assume that any two moral decisions are absolutely the same. I look forward to hearing back from you and continuing the discussion (and hopefully luring Moritz back in as well )
|
|
|
Post by moritz on May 10, 2010 2:20:41 GMT -8
(and hopefully luring Moritz back in as well ) hahaha ;D I don't think there is much to add on my part to the things I've already written on the subject of morals. One thing that stood out to me while reading your last post though, is the trouble with the word proof. This term has many layers. Ultimately, there is no certainty with anything. Even if God spoke up directly, that wouldn't be definite and ultimate proof because there is still the possibility that one is actually crazy, sitting in an asylum, banging one's head against the wall and imagining this entire thing we call reality. So what's the worth of the word proof? Proof in the sense you are using it, doesn't exist. In your argument, you are leaving the sphere of the verifiable. You are speaking (again) of God's perspective - a perspective we have no access to. A perspective we don't even know exists. You are begging the question. If God exists and if he is like you think he is and if objective reality is something we will at some point fully understand, then morality may well be ultimately universal. But this is guessing. It could be so, it could be different. I understand that one can't seperate this topic from the context of all other experiences and that you perceive the total evidence to lead you where you are. But the same goes for me and the evidence is leading me to very different conclusions. This is subjective and it closes the circle: I think if we unhinge the question of morality from the subjective contexts, premisses and speculations about the things we cannot know, and just content ourselves with looking at what we can find within the accessible world, the evidence speaks a clear language against universal morality. Not only can the existence of moral in general be explained rationally without any need of the supernatural*, but also the existence of the very very few values all cultures will agree on. In the past you have argued that the existence of universal morals is evidence for the existence of God. I think it becomes clearer and clearer, that the existence of universal moral cannot be proven and the entire argument for it's existence rests on the premisse that God exists. That's circular reasoning. *Many scientists have linked the ability of being moral to direct evolutionary survival advantages. A very recent paper by evolutionary theist Francisco Ayala argues that morality is an evolutionary byproduct. The ability to be moral is a "necessary consequence of man’s eminent intellectual abilities, which are an attribute directly promoted by natural selection" ( Abstract. Full article).
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 10, 2010 8:08:26 GMT -8
I'm confused. I was responding to DEM's attempt to prove moral relativism. I agree that we cannot prove this with absolute certainty (as we've discussed elsewhere). We are sifting for the best evidenced position.
|
|