Quelle est votre langue maternelle? C'est la française, n'est-ce pas?
J
Printable View
Quelle est votre langue maternelle? C'est la française, n'est-ce pas?
J
Ethics is a little more complicated than being either something out of religion (or for general purposes, cultural influences) or being something entirely of biological origins. It is a little bit of both, and our reason can lead us to act on moral judgements that our intuition contradicts. Moreover, there are ample instances where the seemingly most genetically encoded moral senses (such as the incest or cannibalism taboos) have been overruled in certain cultures.
Now first of all, when speaking of cultural influences on ethics, it is a problem to think of religion as the only source of this kind of moral thinking. Religious ethics are interesting in that they are a form of authoritative proscriptive ethical systems, a bit like a legal code (which is a trope we see in Middle Eastern religions as well). However, religious ethics evolve as well, as we can see in Christianity (especially Catholicism) which has incorporated elements of "natural law" theory from Greco-Roman sources.
The idea that morality is arbitrary and comes out of cultural subjectivities is problematic when we start to think about how morality is resolved within cultures, since a cultural group is not a homogenous body. I also think this is dangerously relativistic, because I honestly believe that we can achieve moral guidelines that are beneficial for the majority of human beings, and that some moral systems are inferior to others. Saying that morality exists merely to restrict people is not true, many moral arguments argue to protect one from interference by others (e.g. liberalism), though that is admittedly a form of restriction I do not think it is what most of us think of as a "restriction" in the colloquial sense (how dare the state prevent me from killing people!). Then, saying morality derives from culture does not really answer how moral judgements arise.
So, where do I think morality comes from? I think in one part it arises from a natural human desire to organize the social sphere, either informally or formally in more structured societies, in order to make our social space more liveable for ourselves. Our desire for these organizing principles, and our need to convince others of these desires, has made us as a species (or rather some of our greatest thinkers) spend a lot of time thinking out how and why we should behave in certain ways. It is important to talk about what is right and wrong, and debate how we should determine these things. As usual, I am a believer in the ability of dialogue to achieve the better results most of the time. For this reason, I think that there is always more merit to a moral statement which can be supported by a reasoned argument than just being an arbitrary intuition. When a reason is provided, it gives us the opportunity to identify common goals and shared premises that can allow us to reach some kind of agreement.
Edit: Les règles du forum disent qu'il faut traduire toute les "post" qu'on fait en langue non-anglais.
The last question is not an appropiate one. Men had to be subjugated to humillation (humus, humil, humble, human, etc.) before human morals appeared. Morals have always been there, but not human morals. Anyone has the ability to sense what's good or bad. No person has to embrace humanism to do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
oui et non.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack of Hearts
Je parle francais, but I prefer English haha.
Pouvez-vous garder un secret, Monsieur le Gendarme?Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
It's the same pour moi aussi.Quote:
Je parle francais, but I prefer English haha.
J
Good post, OrphanPip. A few comments:
Personally, I always found the discrete split between religion, society, etc. and our biological intuitions a bit arbitrary in itself. If our biological intuitions and instincts are what initially "instructs" us what to do, then religion and society would both simply be things that grew out of that, and morals along with them. In fact, I think society and religion are very strong ways in which to enforce and reinforce morality. It's a bit like the debate over gender stereotypes in society in that I think some put the cart before the horse; biological sex told us how to think about and react to the sexes, society reinforced that, and now it's been a long road trying to adapt to anything that breaks away from "normality". A lot of moral changes seem to reflect that process as well, of us having to consider more and more things outside the initial sphere of our biological intuitions and social reinforcements of those intuitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
What you say about achieving moral guidelines that are beneficial for the majority sounds a lot like the rhetoric of Sam Harris, whom I think has some good ideas but tends to oversimplify at times. The real problem one runs into, I think, is that there is a dizzying array of varieties of what humans consider "beneficial" to and for themselves. I've always thought it made most sense to start with the basic NEEDS--food, clothing, shelter, health, etc.--and then work forward from there in more individualistic matters. It's when people start putting their luxuries over the basic needs of others that the real problems arise, and what should, I think, be the main focus of normative ethics. Have you read Shelly Kagan? I think he makes some strong arguments about a basic way to determine morality starting from the ground up without resorting to religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
If we accept the evolutionary picture (which you really must to be taken seriously), we need not go so far as to placate the religious with arguments for non-religious morality. Instead, it's simple enough to demonstrate that, wherever it comes from, it cannot be religion.
Consider the fact that the species has been around for 100,000-200,000 years. The mainstream religions to which the majority of the world population adheres today, and which they would naturally argue is the source of their morality, have been around for a couple of millennia. Therefore, we conclude that humanity was without these typically Abrahamic religions for the majority of its history. Even if we were to make the irrational concession that one of the Abrahamic religions is true, and we accept that humans have always been religious, we must also conclude that humanity has believed in false deities for tens of thousands of years.
This question thus must become: is it necessary to maintain a belief in even a false supernatural entity in order to be moral? If anyone thinks a person is rendered more moral by believing in an untruth than by not believing in the supernatural, I would be entertained to hear their reasons.
[QUOTE=Jack of Hearts;1141402]This question features a lovely fallacy called false dilemma.
You wear your substantial erudition in such a fleeting statement Are you being fair to your own intellect? Or the thread. An explanation would have helped it along. You could explain how the question is analysable in terms of an argument. My assumption (perhaps mistaken) was that it is arguments that are, or at least may be, fallacious, rather than questions
And I would certainly like to know more about false dilemmas. My life feels full of of them. To add to a thread or not to add to a thread. It's a false dilemma. I just need a cure for insomnia
I don't have the etymological data in front of me, but I'm reasonably sure that the words morals and mores are derived from the same root, suggesting a social rather than existential context. What is immoral to a man on an island?
It does, but that is primarily because the word is derived from a Greco-Roman ethical tradition. The Judeo-Christian tradition wouldn't usually view morality only in terms of social expectations.Quote:
Originally Posted by IntravenousJava
I wouldn't say "a person," but I do think there are "some people" that are likely rendered more moral by believing in untruths. If you believe there is an omnipotent, omniscient deity out there watching your every move, then that can be a strong impetus to "do the right thing," ie, the think that's good for more people than just yourself. But I've also thought this presented a problem for those that argue for morals as based in religion or any deity; if you found out tomorrow there was no deity, and that all morals were, ultimately, relative, would you then go out and murder and rape and do all the things society deems "immoral" just because you don't have a deity watching you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Polednice
Although moral relativism is inherently dangerous, especially when diverse cultures interact, since perceived reality is subjective, so, consequently, are ethics.
You would think that would be a good impetus, but I recently read some statistics demonstrating that there is no significant difference in moral behaviour between people who do and do not believe in divine authority. It is not an influencing factor. All such a hypothesis allows is for people to try to ram their morality down others' throats, rather than stick to it themselves. In terms of a deity, I think these points by Peter Singer are essential:Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
"Who is to say what's good or bad without god? This is an ancient question that we find discussed in the beginnings of Western philosophy in Ancient Greece 2500 years ago in Plato. There's a famous dialogue … known as the Euthyphro. In Plato's dialogues, he typically has Socrates … as one character in the dialogue who puts, essentially, his viewpoint, and somebody else that he's discussing it with. In the Euthyphro, Socrates is discussing with Euthyphro what it is to be pious … and Socrates … presents this famous dilemma to Euthyphro. He says, 'Is something good because the gods say that it's good … or do the gods say that it's good because it is good?' And for somebody who wants to say that morality must come from god, this is, I think, a real insoluble problem to which I haven't seen a satisfactory answer because if you say that something is good only because god says it is, you essentially make it arbitrary what 'good' is, and you make god into a kind of arbitrary tyrant. If god had said that it's good to plant bombs in crowded marketplaces and blow up lots of men, women and children as they go about their daily business, then that would be a good thing to do … And conversely if god had said it's wrong to help somebody in distress when you can easily help them, then it would be wrong to help a stranger in distress. And you can't say … 'But god wouldn't have done that because god is good and god only chooses things that are good' because then, of course, you're saying that there is a notion of 'good' that is independent of what god wills.
Secondly, of course, people often say, 'Well, OK, I'll grant you that there are things that are right and wrong and I'll take the view that god tells us what's good and it is good independently of god, but without god we would not have known what the things were that are good.' Well, this really doesn't seem to be the way things work when we look at the knowledge that people have of god because, of course, people typically say god reveals to us in the scriptures what it is that is right or wrong, but … in fact, Christians are highly selective (and other religious people as well) … in what they take from the scriptures and what they regard as good or bad."
I've heard some Christians argue that we can know God exists because there is a moral law inside us that commands and if we are commanded there must be a commander. I m not sure if this is a very feasible argument. I suppose however that commands without any commander (who contains the justification for obedience) may make some people wonder if there is an objective basis for morality. As has been noted in the thread, God may simply be in approval of the good rather than being its founder. However, if we don't refer to God in terms of the foundation of morality to what do we refer?
In fact this is a metaphysical question concerning the foundation of ethics rather than its origin. One could give, say, an evolutionary account as to the origin of ethics while being uninterested in the question of foundation. I would say that if the universe is godless evolution must play a role in the question of origin and the question of foundation is a puzzle. Possibly it is one that we put in a mental box which is separate from our lives as concrete moral agents. Of course if one truly decided that ethics was without foundation surely this would steamroller any moral agency that one had.
Well, I think morality araises from a human innate need for perfection. Religion only asserts this need for perfection. Other forms of authority are just tools to help man , or condition him to behave in a morally accepted way, that is to perfect himself . We need these forms of external authorities to help us evade any lack or imperfection.