What is morality?

[Immanuel Can]

There is no universal foundation of human morality.

What's your evidence for that claim?

Simple observation: multiple belief systems do not create unity but contribute to disunity. Are you denying humanity shares a common biology?

I'm pointing out that disagreement among humans is very common in all areas of life...and it never means much. Something can be true, even while lots of people have different opinions.

So it's not really evidence for any particular conclusion.

[MikeNovack]

There is only one rational source of morality for humankind, and that is humanity's common biology and its self-interest in the survival and well-being of that common biology.

Except millions of years ago (before we were "humans") we ceased being strictly "biological". Or more properly described, our biology determined that we would be obligatory social animals with CULTURE. These cultures, systems whose components are the humans comprising a band/society also evolve.

We still have common biology but we do not have common culture.

[Immanuel Can]

There is only one rational source of morality for humankind, and that is humanity's common biology and its self-interest in the survival and well-being of that common biology.

...obligatory social animals...

I know what it means to be "social," and I know what you mean by "animal." But "obligatory" is ambiguous: it could mean, "obliged to be social," which would be very obvious, or it could be mistaken for "inherently obliged to follow moral or social obligations within their culture," which is certainly a much more contestable position and not at all self-evident.

May I ask which of the two you mean?

We still have common biology but we do not have common culture.

This, I think is astute.

But I think what popeye is liking about biology is that it's universal...so he hopes he can make it also generate a universal duty to be moral. Of course, that doesn't work at all: a biological fact doesn't automatically generate any moral obligations (Hume et al.). But he's at least found something universal. The problem with culture, when it comes to morality, is that cultures are not at all universal; they disagree, and disagree quite violently often, about what they wish to make culturally "moral." Even their pronouncements at the local level are under contest all the time, and shift and change.

So culture isn't going to become any guarantor of morality, not merely because people don't always follow it, but because if morality's base authority is only culture, then one loses all obligation toward it the minute one changes one's culture or shifts the mores in the existing culture. It's unstable, transient and particular, not at all universal. So what can it tell us about whatever is genuinely moral?

[MikeNovack]

...obligatory social animals...[/quote]
I know what it means to be "social," and I know what you mean by "animal." But "obligatory" is ambiguous: it could mean, "obliged to be social," which would be very obvious, or it could be mistaken for "inherently obliged to follow moral or social obligations within their culture," which is certainly a much more contestable position and not at all self-evident.

May I ask which of the two you mean?
[/quote]

Primarily the first. Certainly long before we became humans, extremely likely before our evolutionary line split from the lines that became chimps and bonobos, we have been obligatory social animals. Unable to survive except as members of a group.

I would NOT describe our need to follow the moral/social customs of our group as a MORAL obligation. That would be more a PRACTICAL obligations. If our group expels us, we do not survive << I am NOT speaking in terms of our modern societies -- so say I am talking about until the rather recent past 5-10,000 years ago -- remember up to 5,000 years ago is 99.9% of 5 million years ago >>

[Immanuel Can]

...obligatory social animals...

I know what it means to be "social," and I know what you mean by "animal." But "obligatory" is ambiguous: it could mean, "obliged to be social," which would be very obvious, or it could be mistaken for "inherently obliged to follow moral or social obligations within their culture," which is certainly a much more contestable position and not at all self-evident.

May I ask which of the two you mean?

Primarily the first. Certainly long before we became humans, extremely likely before our evolutionary line split from the lines that became chimps and bonobos, we have been obligatory social animals. Unable to survive except as members of a group.

Oh. Well, that's fine: I wouldn't suppose anybody would claim humans were "anti-social animals," or loners of some kind. So that looks right...as long as we don't suppose that it "obliges" them to any particular cultural morality. That would have to be shown separately, because it's not at all entailed.

But I think popeye was aiming for more. I think he wanted to assert that our "universal" humanity means we are somehow obligated to an equally "universal" morality. And if that was his intention, he would need to show how that comes about. It's not obvious from the bare fact that we are all human beings that morality even exists as a real thing, rather than simply as part of our cultural imaginings.

[MikeNovack]

Oh. Well, that's fine: I wouldn't suppose anybody would claim humans were "anti-social animals," or loners of some kind. So that looks right...as long as we don't suppose that it "obliges" them to any particular cultural morality. That would have to be shown separately, because it's not at all entailed.
........
human beings that morality even exists as a real thing, rather than simply as part of our cultural imaginings.

We don't imagine that we have/live in a culture. We do not imagine that it has mores. By "imagine" I think you mean as opposed to some set of divinely based mores,

IC, the problem is that you needed to make ethical/moral decisions BEFORE you get to your divinely based set. What did you base those upon?
This is a GOOD God. I ought to obey THIS God. Etc.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh. Well, that's fine: I wouldn't suppose anybody would claim humans were "anti-social animals," or loners of some kind. So that looks right...as long as we don't suppose that it "obliges" them to any particular cultural morality. That would have to be shown separately, because it's not at all entailed.
........
human beings that morality even exists as a real thing, rather than simply as part of our cultural imaginings.

We don't imagine that we have/live in a culture. We do not imagine that it has mores. By "imagine" I think you mean as opposed to some set of divinely based mores,

No, not at all. I merely point out that if culture is the root of all morality, then Islamic culture is quite different from Hindu culture and from Jewish culture and from Wiccan or pagan cultures...and, moreover, that even within a single culture, morality shifts. Take, for example, the culture of southern America. At one time, there, slavery was regarded as a positive good, and now it's conceded to be an evil. The morality has reversed. So which was the genuinely moral stance? If culture is the basis of morality, then slavery was good when they thought it was good, and evil now...unless they decide to swing back, in which case, it will become good again.

You can see that none of that is telling us anything stable about what morality really might be.

IC, the problem is that you needed to make ethical/moral decisions BEFORE you get to your divinely based set. What did you base those upon?
This is a GOOD God. I ought to obey THIS God. Etc.

Well, in the Christian view, all men have a knowledge of good. They don't always follow it, and they don't always do good, but they do have a conscience about it, because God places such knowledge in all men. (Romans 1) This is not a perfect knowledge, for no human knowledge ever is; and in the Christian view, men are also infected with moral distortion by way of sin. But the basic knowledge of the existence of God and the fact of His goodness is instilled in all human beings, whether they're willing to admit it or not.

So genuine morality is universally true, not merely local and cultural. And it's grounded in the essential character of God Himself.

[MikeNovack]

IC, the problem is that you needed to make ethical/moral decisions BEFORE you get to your divinely based set. What did you base those upon?
This is a GOOD God. I ought to obey THIS God. Etc.

Well, in the Christian view, all men have a knowledge of good. They don't always follow it, and they don't always do good, but they do have a conscience about it, because God places such knowledge in all men. (Romans 1) This is not a perfect knowledge, for no human knowledge ever is; and in the Christian view, men are also infected with moral distortion by way of sin. But the basic knowledge of the existence of God and the fact of His goodness is instilled in all human beings, whether they're willing to admit it or not.

So genuine morality is universally true, not merely local and cultural. And it's grounded in the essential character of God Himself.

UH ....... well from the Jewish perspective (understanding of the Garden "myth") it was eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Yes, God put the tree there BUT also said "don't eat the fruit of that tree".

"Genuine morality"? Not sure we are all agreed about that. Whether exists or is knowable. Yes, we understand you have Christian certainty. And perhaps you are arguing "if you accept Christianity you too can have certainty". But to some of us, that appears circular.

[Immanuel Can]

IC, the problem is that you needed to make ethical/moral decisions BEFORE you get to your divinely based set. What did you base those upon?
This is a GOOD God. I ought to obey THIS God. Etc.

Well, in the Christian view, all men have a knowledge of good. They don't always follow it, and they don't always do good, but they do have a conscience about it, because God places such knowledge in all men. (Romans 1) This is not a perfect knowledge, for no human knowledge ever is; and in the Christian view, men are also infected with moral distortion by way of sin. But the basic knowledge of the existence of God and the fact of His goodness is instilled in all human beings, whether they're willing to admit it or not.

So genuine morality is universally true, not merely local and cultural. And it's grounded in the essential character of God Himself.

UH ....... well from the Jewish perspective (understanding of the Garden "myth") it was eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Yes, God put the tree there BUT also said "don't eat the fruit of that tree".

Right...and? I'll need more information in order to see what you're trying to say there.

"Genuine morality"? Not sure we are all agreed about that. Whether exists or is knowable.

I just use the term "genuine morality" there as the only way I can think of to express the idea of "whatever any real morality is." What I'm saying is that cultural morality clearly cannot be it. Something so changeable -- even within each culture itself -- cannot possibly provide us with the sort of guidance for which we look when we ask, "Yeah, but is it MORAL?" I think what we want to know is that what we do is, in some sense, more "right" than alternatives, and "right" in some sort of durable and duty-conferring way...as when we tell our kids, "Do the MORAL thing, not the easy thing."

But what can we mean, if all "morality" is malleable, local, temporary and transient, as cultural morality always is? What are we asking them to attend to?

[MikeNovack]

But what can we mean, if all "morality" is malleable, local, temporary and transient, as cultural morality always is? What are we asking them to attend to?

THAT is a non-issue (what our children learn). Temporary and transient do not necessarily mean changing all that much within a human lifespan. That a culture's moral rules might have been different a few hundred years ago and will likely be different a few hundred years hence has little to do with how I judge my actions now, today.

How about we start with what might be knowable in general. Are there any moral rules pretty much the same in all/most all cultures? In other words, what are the moral rules (if any) we would expect to find in most cultures, would be surprised if we found them absent.

[Immanuel Can]

But what can we mean, if all "morality" is malleable, local, temporary and transient, as cultural morality always is? What are we asking them to attend to?

THAT is a non-issue (what our children learn).

Hardly. Do your want your children to become "good" people? How can you do that, if we know nothing about what "good" actually is?

Temporary and transient do not necessarily mean changing all that much within a human lifespan.

You think so? I don't think you can make that case. For instance, public attitudes to things like homosexuality, transgenderism, abortion and euthanasia have swung radically during my lifetime. Where were you?

But let's imagine it actually takes a generation to change cultural morals. (It doesn't, but I'll play along, just for argument's sake). That would still mean that either the older culture or the newer culture got it wrong. So what does that culture know about morals?

Are there any moral rules pretty much the same in all/most all cultures?

Not many. There's almost nothing that some culture has not celebrated and another deplored. I don't know of any cultures that celebrate outright incest...though cousin-marriages are common in Pakistan...but almost anything else...well, can you suggest one?

[MikeNovack]

Are there any moral rules pretty much the same in all/most all cultures?

Not many. There's almost nothing that some culture has not celebrated and another deplored. I don't know of any cultures that celebrate outright incest...though cousin-marriages are common in Pakistan...but almost anything else...well, can you suggest one?

First we need to separate two concepts, and you gave a good example why.

'Incest" ----- yes universal (all cultures) and "cousin marriage" in some cultures is NOT a counter example. You have made a bad assumption that all cultures recon kin the same way, or need to in order to implement effectively equivalent "incest" taboos. You have a term/concept "cousin" and you think that has a definite meaning. You treat cross cousins and cis cousins as the same thing and cis cousins related male and cis cousins related female as the same. Other cultures have a different take on that.

So ALL CULTURES have incest rules, just not going to be the same relatives excluded as your culture would. And BTW, forget Pakistan (where it is only children of brothers who would marry -- not children of sisters or cross cousins). Right here in the USA cousin marriage (any sort of cousins) is allowed in 18 states. On the other hand, consider "clan" societies which might forbid "cousin" marriage on on side OR both sides no matter how distantly related << you are thinking only of what you call "first cousins" >> And of course it is NOT prohibited in the Bible (you can even see this "cousins related through "brother" (fathers in same clan) " were preferred marriage partners.

But how about more fundamentally? I have suggest earlier that you learned morality exists (things are going to be right or wrong) because you were "toilet trained" and trained to wear clothes early in your life. The latter is an example just like "incest". That there WILL be rules about what is to be worn will be in all cultures. But WHAT is to be worn will vary culture to culture.

So we have three so far. How about "murder"? A long as you understand that "killing whom counts as murder" will vary by culture. How about "stealing" when again, "taking form whom counts as stealing" is going to vary culture to culture. In other words, I am saying what will be universal is each culture will define an "in group" within which must not kill or steal from. But cultures will not be in agreement about what that "in group" is.

[Immanuel Can]

Are there any moral rules pretty much the same in all/most all cultures?

Not many. There's almost nothing that some culture has not celebrated and another deplored. I don't know of any cultures that celebrate outright incest...though cousin-marriages are common in Pakistan...but almost anything else...well, can you suggest one?

First we need to separate two concepts, and you gave a good example why.

'Incest" ----- yes universal (all cultures) and "cousin marriage" in some cultures is NOT a counter example.

Debatable. It's awfully close. It's at least 'consanguinity." And there certainly have been sub-cultures that were inclined to incestuous relations, such as ancient Egypt.

You have made a bad assumption that all cultures recon kin the same way,

I never made that assumption. You'll have to show me where you think you got that idea.

...forget Pakistan...

Why? And what do you do with ancient Egypt?

That there WILL be rules about what is to be worn will be in all cultures. But WHAT is to be worn will vary culture to culture.

Well, clothing is a practical need, and may not be a moral imperative in every culture. And certainly, there are nearly naked cultures -- ancient tribes that have a loincloth or less to cover them. So I don't think clothing counts as either universal or as uniquely a moral issue. It certainly is for Islamists; but I don't think it is for Pygmies.

So we have three so far.

I count none, so far. Incest was practiced in Egypt, and in other ancient empires, too, among the nobility; and clothing isn't a peculiarly moral issue for many cultures.

How about "murder"? A long as you understand that "killing whom counts as murder" will vary by culture.

Islam sees killing infidels as positively moral. Thuggees, Satanists, Socialists...they all murder, but with an excuse provided them by their culture.

How about "stealing" when again, "taking form whom counts as stealing" is going to vary culture to culture.

Communists, in theory, don't believe in stealing, because in theory, they don't believe in ownership either. However, I think even Communists know they're really thieves...though I can't prove that.

In other words, I am saying what will be universal is each culture will define an "in group" within which must not kill or steal from. But cultures will not be in agreement about what that "in group" is.

Well, the same is true of all possible moral axioms. There's always a group to which it refers, and a group to which it does not. But it's the moral axioms we need to find to be universal, not merely the common element of an "in" and "out" group. And I don't think we have any candidates yet, except for a fairly usual injunction against incest...with exceptions, of course.

This is again why culture is not helpful as an orientation point for morality. It's not giving us any traction on which culture has the right formula...if any does.

[promethean75]

"However, I think even Communists know they're really thieves...though I can't prove that."

We... well, 'they' (I'm a post-left anarchist)... call that reclamation, IC. Here lemme show you how it works.

You pay me ten dollars an hour, and in that hour, i produce something you will sell for twenty dollars. I come back later, break your knees, cut your balls off so you can't reproduce and create more parasites, and take my other ten dollars back from you.

Now, how you get away with not being called a thief is through a cool little trick with a piece of paper that has the words 'factory owner' on it. Nobody really even knows what that means, but they do know that there are police who will defend that piece of paper and its proprietor, you, with lethal force.

[Immanuel Can]

"However, I think even Communists know they're really thieves...though I can't prove that."

We... well, 'they' (I'm a post-left anarchist)... call that reclamation, IC.

Evil people always find "nice" names to redescribe their evil. It's not "murder," it's "choice." It's not "theft," it's "redistribution." It's not "genocide," it's "cleansing."

You pay me ten dollars an hour, and in that hour, i produce something you will sell for twenty dollars.

Who saw the opportunity? Who bought the raw materials? Who created the business? Who built the building, bought the machines, paid the insurance and taxes, paved the parking lot, managed the hiring process, created the value chain, and invested in the wages and benefits of workers who might or might not return value? In short, who risked his own income in the hopes of making more?

And who freely contracted for a fair wage, and is now demanding the entire proceeds?

I come back later, break your knees, cut your balls off so you can't reproduce and create more parasites, and take my other ten dollars back from you.

How did it become "yours"? Did you do any of the above?

Commies are so simple-minded. In their view, there is only the worker, who produces 100% of the value, and the employer, who is nothing but a greedy exploiter. And the only proof they require of their view is that the employer has "surplus value": in other words, that he may end up with more money than the wages of the worker.

They're such green-eyed little twerps. And they try to dignify their greed with words like "equalization," or "fairness." But it's really just petty jealousy.

If you sign a contract and take the job, take your wages and be happy. If you don't like your wages, quit and take a new job. There are no slaves in a Western economy. The employer moves freely, and so does the worker. Employment is by mutual agreement, not by compulsion or force.

So demanding anything else is theft...and covetousness. Nothing more.