Do morals even matter anymore?
- Thread starter JGolds
- Start date
Are you serious about this discussion? I'm not sure if I should engage, as my time is limited, and I would hate to waste it if we're not going to have a decent conversation. But I'll give it a go.
As is the case with any debate, we must define our terms. What is morality? For most people, it is a sense of what is right and what is wrong. I personally find that to be a useless subjective definition that serves to confuse, not enlighten.
Let's try to be objective. Morality is the set of rules that human societies establish in order to draw the lines of acceptable behavior across the many realms of human existence. Do you agree with this definition? If so, then we agree that morality is made up by humans, and not simply given by any mystical supernatural source. If you agree, then we can proceed with the discussion on the value of morality, and how it should be viewed and constructed. If not, I'm willing to debate alternate definitions if they are logically consistent.
As is the case with any debate, we must define our terms. What is morality? For most people, it is a sense of what is right and what is wrong. I personally find that to be a useless subjective definition that serves to confuse, not enlighten.
Let's try to be objective. Morality is the set of rules that human societies establish in order to draw the lines of acceptable behavior across the many realms of human existence. Do you agree with this definition? If so, then we agree that morality is made up by humans, and not simply given by any mystical supernatural source. If you agree, then we can proceed with the discussion on the value of morality, and how it should be viewed and constructed. If not, I'm willing to debate alternate definitions if they are logically consistent.
JGolds
Well-Known Member
I honestly have been intrigued by the concept of morals for some time. Mine were instilled in me though my parents and my activity in religion. Using the knowledge I was given I decided what was right and wrong. I think there is such thing as right and wrong and I honestly have come to the conclusion that in most cases the thing that tips the scale is based and a moral standard.
I think it's better not to think of "right and wrong" as entities that exist outside of human definitions. We, as local, national, or global communities, decide what is right and what isn't. The question should be about HOW to decide. I personally think that objective morality is obviously achievable, and is far superior than the confused and conflicting moral perspective individuals currently hold.
Let me start with this this principle; morality is a system constructed by human beings in order to advance their well-being. Consequently, we can think of well-being as the first principle of which all moral judgments stem forth. I like this better than such concepts as "liberty" or "happiness" since well-being is more general, making it more robust. In other words, one can argue that liberty enhances one's well-being. But well-being does not enhance one's liberty (a meaningless statement).
I'll wait for other opinions before I go on.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Morality is a social construct and as such is in a state of constant flux.
Can't think of any moral wrong that can't be a moral right under a different moral construct and vice versa.
What makes you think Neanderthals didn't have some sort of moral code? I think the term you're looking for is amoral.
Can't think of any moral wrong that can't be a moral right under a different moral construct and vice versa.
What makes you think Neanderthals didn't have some sort of moral code? I think the term you're looking for is amoral.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Amoranderthal?
It is highly unlikely that Neanderthals were amoral. They were sentient social animals, and very likely to have had some sort of moral system. And there is some truth to your comment on ever-changing morals, but you're missing a vital point. What has been isn't necessarily what has to be. People based their agricultural decisions on astrology, soothsayers, palm readers, and all kinds of ever-changing standards. But now they base it on objective knowledge, and there is no going back to those fluctuating methods of the past.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
There is a difference between what the individual sees as morals and what society views a morals. You see the difference between personal morals and societal morals when there is a riot like after a team wins a championship. Personal morals allow those individuals to trash businesses and loot, while the group-think structure of the riot gives them a reason to ignore the societal morals that normally keep those things in check.
I maintain that morality is a collectivist endeavor. There is no such thing as individual morality if we are to accept that moral standards are best achieved through rational discourse. At least, there is no place for individual morality if it conflicts with objectively derived social morality. You'll notice that this view is what many jurisprudence thinkers link with Law. But I do not see a rigid distinction between the two. If laws and morals are both objective, then moral principles are a subset of a society's laws. I'm clearly ignoring the fact that laws can be used to manage and direct society in ways that do not necessarily relate to morality. But moral standards, if we accept that morality is collectively established, are enforced by a society through the use of laws.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
That has nothing to do with morality...
Only if you ignore everything else I said. I gave what I consider a useful definition of morality. The common view of morality as a personal feeling for what's right is useless and must be discarded. If we view morality as the set of rules for acceptable human behavior, then it is best to establish these rules based on rational and objective processes.
Either way, I want to wash the dishes and tidy up the place before the game begin. If someone posts a worthwhile challenge, I'll respond tomorrow.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
It's a code generally instilled from parents from a set morality and it's up to that individual to accept or deny specifics in that code. "Personal feeling" don't really enter the equation. Morality exists to keep the social structure intact. Sounds like it's rational to me, no matter what constructs are used. A lot of the moral code from Christianity is a remnant of living conditions when the moral code of the Hebrews. Those descending from that code have kept a lot of that overseeing code in place and has become more of a traditional thing. George Carlin in his famous 10 commandments bit deconstructed this code quite well.
MVP
Well-Known Member
hm.. We were never Neanderthals... There was a theory that Homo sapiens were mating on occasions with Neanderthals but as it stands it was a different species.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Well, one of the definitions of species is that members of that species can create viable offspring that can procreate. When I was in school, there was still debate on whether neandertalensis was a separate species or a sub-species of sapiens. I do think that the common thought now is that it is indeed its own species, but I haven't looked at it in awhile.
b_line
Well-Known Member
Actually, most Europeans, and especially Northern Europeans are about 5% or so Neanderthal. So, the mating theory is probable. Like you said, they were a separate evolutionary track from Homo sapiens.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
The more I've looked into the abstracts of more recent scholarly articles (Oxford and the like), I see a clear referral of neandertalensis as a species and not a subspecies. I can't read any of the articles I looked at because of paywalls, but anything on Neanderthals were using them as a different species. I'm not sure of the exact reasons behind it.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Yeah I know that they do. Many scholarly types for whatever reason seem to shy away from the subspecies label all too often imo. They do this with the Bornean and Sumatran Orangutans as well when I would like to see them classified as a single species with 2 subspecies.
You have to think on a different plane of existence to be able to say yes to that. But all the giants out there did... Hawkins, Newton, the Wright brothers, Einstein. They all embraced three words that form a great truth.
Wrong is subjective.