Philosophy Now Forum

Moral Blind Spots
Gerald Jones discusses how we judge the past, how we will one day be judged, and what we can do about it.

We do not know how the future will judge us – but judge us it will. Just as we look back at the past and find it wanting, so our descendants will find us wanting.

"So what?"

That's how some will react. Those, for example, who have thought themselves into believing their own death entails falling over into the abyss that is oblivion. They're dead and gone. Forever and ever and ever. Of what possible concern can judgments be to someone on his or her way back to star stuff?

Instead, it would seem, judgments from the past, present and future go with you. That's why "the Gods" and then later [historically] the "a God, the God, my God" folks always recognized the need for a Divine entity that everything could go back to...and fall back on.

The part, in other words, where an actual divine Creator commands behaviors that, come one or another rendition of Judgment Day, it will be decided whether you go up or down. 

And the stakes here -- immortality, salvation -- are, after all, simply staggering.

There are flaws in our social and moral practices that we can’t quite see; but knowing this, we can seek out these moral blind spots and throw light on them.

Or, perhaps, the greatest flaw of all here is how, down through the ages, there were, are, and almost certainly always will be those communities -- God and No God -- able to subsume every and all assumption pertaining to morality onto one or another One True Path. Or else? 

Yet something is vitally different in our own case. In Frankenstein, a human created a version of itself, but in so doing fashioned a monster that could not be controlled and which wrought terrible judgement upon its creator. For the first time in our history we possess the technology, and the will, to do what Victor Frankenstein did. We are close to being able to both transform ourselves and to create minds in our own image.

And, now, living in an age where some insist it is becoming increasingly more difficult to differentiate flesh and blood human minds from AI machine minds, we are confronting the possibility whereby [perhaps] our very own monsters  -- terminators -- will be unleashed. 

Still, how can it not be fascinating to ponder the extent to which minds that are entirely machines either can or cannot [will or will not, should or should not] provide us with an objective morality.

Click of course. After all, some do argue we ourselves are but Mother Nature's own machines.

Whatever that might possibly mean.

Moral Blind Spots
Gerald Jones discusses how we judge the past, how we will one day be judged, and what we can do about it.

Moral philosophers often pride themselves on dealing with ‘hard cases’ – difficult moral dilemmas that test an ethical theory, throw a harsh light onto its faults, and then nudge the discussion of ethics forward.

Which is basically what I attempt to do in the OPs here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-man ... sein/31641
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/moral ... live/45989
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639

The part whereby in a No God universe it seems entirely reasonable to sustain a fractured and fragmented moral philosophy.

On the other hand, sure, "for better or for worse".

But here let’s think instead about ‘easy cases’ for ethics, in particular, historically easy cases; that is, those practices of past civilisations which we straightforwardly judge and condemn. Our scrutiny of historically easy cases will prompt a new concept – of moral blind spots – that will cast doubt on our own ethical certainties.

"A moral blind spot is a psychological bias or blind spot that prevents people from seeing the unethical aspects of their own behavior, actions, or judgments. " AI

On the other hand, for countless men and women, a psychological bias revolves instead around the assumption that God or No God their own self-righteous moral philosophy reflects either 1] the best of all possible worlds or 2] the one and the only One True Path to an objective, essential morality, applicable to all of us.

Take the historically easy case of the Lindow Man. At some point in the First Century AD, on a remote moor in Cheshire, England, a young man of high birth was ritually killed, or rather, overkilled: his throat cut, he was axed in the head and garrotted, and his naked body thrown into a bog.

Contemporary Roman judgments of ritual sacrifice were harsh: Roman commentators left many descriptions of the horrific superstitious practices of Celtic human sacrifice, including rumours of huge Wicker Men into which people were herded to be burnt alive.

We share the same revulsion over human sacrifice as Caesar and friends. Yet something else strikes us: how could the Romans have condemned the Celts so harshly and yet themselves practise ritual human slaughter on a scale unseen in Celtic Europe? Mary Beard estimates a death rate of 8,000 gladiators per year – meaning that over the centuries, hundreds of thousands of young men died in arenas across the Roman Empire.

So, you tell me...

Using the tools of philosophy, what are we to make of this? Are there human behaviors so ghastly, so grotesque that no one would or could ever rationalize them? This after perusing human history to date? Even given such things as the Holocaust and any number of other "final solutions" that mere mortals have pursued self-righteously? Sometimes in the name of God, other times in the name of one or another political ideology or "school of philosophy" or dogmatic assessment of so-called biological imperatives.

Moral Blind Spots
Gerald Jones discusses how we judge the past, how we will one day be judged, and what we can do about it.

A moral denunciation of gladiatorial combat is uncontroversial now, as it combines historical distance (which always eases judgement; after all, there are no ancient Romans around to explain themselves or to take offence) with condemnations of slavery (most gladiators were slaves), killing for entertainment (50,000 thumb-jabbing spectators could be squeezed into the Colosseum), and death on an industrial scale (nearly 10,000 gladiators fought in the games to celebrate Trajan’s victory over the Dacians). Why couldn’t the Romans see what we can now easily see – that just like the ritual sacrifice of the Celts, their murder of humans for entertainment is morally indefensible?

This sort of assessment will always be problematic. After all, it's not like philosophers can peruse history and note human behaviors that were/are/always will be demonstrably moral or immoral. Or go around the globe today and rank human communities as either more or less moral. And anything the Romans did "back then" can be compared to, say, any number of ghastly "final solutions" embedded in the Twentieth Century? Or look around the world today. How would we explain our own behaviors to the Romans? And, as often as not, much of it still revolves around those who champion one or another rendition of "Our True Path Or Else".

Instead, only the moral objectivists/deontologists among us claim that they have already accomplished this. Again, just ask them.

The past contains many such examples of easy moral cases, where the actions of our ancestors are so repugnant that we wonder why they couldn’t see that themselves. Oft-cited examples of historically easy cases include: state-sponsored slavery; church-disseminated misogyny; the beheading of enemies in war; the torture of prisoners in peace; the widespread slaughter of animals – hang-on, that still goes on…

Perhaps we should just accept that in regard to any number of human interactions "down through the ages" what are seen as "easy cases" to some are construed as anything but to others. And still today. Abortion for example. Or gun control. Or homosexuality. And that is often before we get to the barbarous pursuits of those who own and operate the "deep states".

As for the "slaughter of animals", you tell me how easy or hard -- moral or immoral -- that one is.

Morals relative to geography and culture are influenced by degrees of isolation; their systems of morality are not based on a commonality of humanity, but rather on the orientation of place and time within the context of the world. Moral orientation systems are built upon the wisdom and ignorance of humanity's ancestors, applied to the present, and intended to guide us into the future. This is the way of the past and the present, but woe if it represents the future, for the future will be stillborn. The flow of change is reality, and that which does not change must perish; all systems of whatever nature must be open systems, even those of systems of morality through myth/religion and traditions. That which has been concretized will decay; reality, the flow of life moves on, renewing itself, re-energizing itself, breathing life into that which changes with it, ever-renewing itself from the energies of the present realm of creation and flowing ever forward. Morality should be relative to the commonality of humanity, to humanity's biological reality, its survival, and well-being; all open systems must be relative to all other open systems in the flow of change, which is reality. Change or perish!

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 4:09 am Morals relative to geography and culture are influenced by degrees of isolation; their systems of morality are not based on a commonality of humanity, but rather on the orientation of place and time within the context of the world. Moral orientation systems are built upon the wisdom and ignorance of humanity's ancestors, applied to the present, and intended to guide us into the future. This is the way of the past and the present, but woe if it represents the future, for the future will be stillborn. The flow of change is reality, and that which does not change must perish; all systems of whatever nature must be open systems, even those of systems of morality through myth/religion and traditions. That which has been concretized will decay; reality, the flow of life moves on, renewing itself, re-energizing itself, breathing life into that which changes with it, ever-renewing itself from the energies of the present realm of creation and flowing ever forward. Morality should be relative to the commonality of humanity, to humanity's biological reality, its survival, and well-being; all open systems must be relative to all other open systems in the flow of change, which is reality. Change or perish!

No permanent moral principles at all? Not even the permanent and constant moral principle to seek the true, the beautiful, and the good?

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 8:53 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 4:09 am Morals relative to geography and culture are influenced by degrees of isolation; their systems of morality are not based on a commonality of humanity, but rather on the orientation of place and time within the context of the world. Moral orientation systems are built upon the wisdom and ignorance of humanity's ancestors, applied to the present, and intended to guide us into the future. This is the way of the past and the present, but woe if it represents the future, for the future will be stillborn. The flow of change is reality, and that which does not change must perish; all systems of whatever nature must be open systems, even those of systems of morality through myth/religion and traditions. That which has been concretized will decay; reality, the flow of life moves on, renewing itself, re-energizing itself, breathing life into that which changes with it, ever-renewing itself from the energies of the present realm of creation and flowing ever forward. Morality should be relative to the commonality of humanity, to humanity's biological reality, its survival, and well-being; all open systems must be relative to all other open systems in the flow of change, which is reality. Change or perish!

No permanent moral principles at all? Not even the permanent and constant moral principle to seek the true, the beautiful, and the good?

Hi Belinda,

Nothing needs to be written in stone; that which is part of the nature of the creature will shine through all changes as extensions and expressions of the nature of being. The beautiful is the health of being, and the good is the expression of that which supports the well-being of life forms. This is not mystical; it is the nature of reality. Life itself is flow, as the late mythologist Joseph Campbell once stated. "Life is a beautiful opera, accept its painful."

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 10:08 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 8:53 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 4:09 am Morals relative to geography and culture are influenced by degrees of isolation; their systems of morality are not based on a commonality of humanity, but rather on the orientation of place and time within the context of the world. Moral orientation systems are built upon the wisdom and ignorance of humanity's ancestors, applied to the present, and intended to guide us into the future. This is the way of the past and the present, but woe if it represents the future, for the future will be stillborn. The flow of change is reality, and that which does not change must perish; all systems of whatever nature must be open systems, even those of systems of morality through myth/religion and traditions. That which has been concretized will decay; reality, the flow of life moves on, renewing itself, re-energizing itself, breathing life into that which changes with it, ever-renewing itself from the energies of the present realm of creation and flowing ever forward. Morality should be relative to the commonality of humanity, to humanity's biological reality, its survival, and well-being; all open systems must be relative to all other open systems in the flow of change, which is reality. Change or perish!

No permanent moral principles at all? Not even the permanent and constant moral principle to seek the true, the beautiful, and the good?

Hi Belinda,

Nothing needs to be written in stone; that which is part of the nature of the creature will shine through all changes as extensions and expressions of the nature of being. The beautiful is the health of being, and the good is the expression of that which supports the well-being of life forms. This is not mystical; it is the nature of reality. Life itself is flow, as the late mythologist Joseph Campbell once stated. "Life is a beautiful opera, accept its painful."

I wonder if you will disapprove when I say that what you wrote can be expressed in religious language. Anyway here goes: it paraphrases as ' to live with one's guide as the good, the true, and the beautiful is to harmonise with God'.

You write "the nature of the creature".
Do you agree that all human babies are born living according to the good, the true, and the beautiful but that cultures of belief inhibit that natural orientation?

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 10:53 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 10:08 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 8:53 am


No permanent moral principles at all? Not even the permanent and constant moral principle to seek the true, the beautiful, and the good?

Hi Belinda,

Nothing needs to be written in stone; that which is part of the nature of the creature will shine through all changes as extensions and expressions of the nature of being. The beautiful is the health of being, and the good is the expression of that which supports the well-being of life forms. This is not mystical; it is the nature of reality. Life itself is flow, as the late mythologist Joseph Campbell once stated. "Life is a beautiful opera, accept its painful."

I wonder if you will disapprove when I say that what you wrote can be expressed in religious language. Anyway, here goes: it paraphrases as ' to live with one's guide as the good, the true, and the beautiful is to harmonise with God'. You write "the nature of the creature".
Do you agree that all human babies are born living according to the good, the true, and the beautiful, but that cultures of belief inhibit that natural orientation?

Humanity has always needed mythology/religion for orientation and grounding. The real dangers of mythology/religion are its concretization of the word to serve faith in the negation of mystery. This makes the myth, the religion, something unnatural, for all things change, and that which does not change is a pathology. The astronomer Carl Sagan stated that, "If we are to survive as a species, we must overcome faith." All living things come into this world as innocence, a world where life lives upon, life. Most animals maintain their innocence through their ignorance and remain pure of heart. The human animal maintains through maturation its innocence, not through ignorance, but through compassion for all living things, and yes, a society that does not embrace compassion for all living things corrupts the innocence of the human child.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 12:13 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 10:53 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 10:08 am

Hi Belinda,

Nothing needs to be written in stone; that which is part of the nature of the creature will shine through all changes as extensions and expressions of the nature of being. The beautiful is the health of being, and the good is the expression of that which supports the well-being of life forms. This is not mystical; it is the nature of reality. Life itself is flow, as the late mythologist Joseph Campbell once stated. "Life is a beautiful opera, accept its painful."

I wonder if you will disapprove when I say that what you wrote can be expressed in religious language. Anyway, here goes: it paraphrases as ' to live with one's guide as the good, the true, and the beautiful is to harmonise with God'. You write "the nature of the creature".
Do you agree that all human babies are born living according to the good, the true, and the beautiful, but that cultures of belief inhibit that natural orientation?

Humanity has always needed mythology/religion for orientation and grounding. The real dangers of mythology/religion are its concretization of the word to serve faith in the negation of mystery. This makes the myth, the religion, something unnatural, for all things change, and that which does not change is a pathology. The astronomer Carl Sagan stated that, "If we are to survive as a species, we must overcome faith." All living things come into this world as innocence, a world where life lives upon, life. Most animals maintain their innocence through their ignorance and remain pure of heart. The human animal maintains through maturation its innocence, not through ignorance, but through compassion for all living things, and yes, a society that does not embrace compassion for all living things corrupts the innocence of the human child.

Exactly. As Matthwew has it:-
Gospel of Matthew 18:3 (KJV):

“Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

Moral relativism appears to lead to contradictory conclusions. For instance, if I say A should B, and you say A should not B, then moral relativism concludes that the statements A should B and A should not B are both true. I believe in moral absolutism which says that objective moral truths exist. However, I am also a moral skeptic in that I don't know what are the absolute moral truths. I simply have a moral code which seems highly reasonable, without knowing with certainty that they are true. I am open to change, but meanwhile, I assume they are true until proven false.

Jori wrote: ↑Sat Oct 25, 2025 10:29 am Moral relativism appears to lead to contradictory conclusions. For instance, if I say A should B, and you say A should not B, then moral relativism concludes that the statements A should B and A should not B are both true. I believe in moral absolutism which says that objective moral truths exist. However, I am also a moral skeptic in that I don't know what are the absolute moral truths. I simply have a moral code which seems highly reasonable, without knowing with certainty that they are true. I am open to change, but meanwhile, I assume they are true until proven false.

Yes, but your criteria---are those relative or absolute?
Popeye's moral criterion is biology, which I'd dispute because human nature adapts to circumstances, unlike other animals. I mean, if we humans were not sapiens but like wild horses then we would have no problem about moral absolutism.

In my previous post I quoted from the Gospel of Matthew. We are to become as little children. Little children are like wild horses in that both wild horses and little children instinctively know what is the right thing to do, and they do it----until the horse is tamed and the little child is socialised.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 5:21 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 12:13 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 10:53 am

I wonder if you will disapprove when I say that what you wrote can be expressed in religious language. Anyway, here goes: it paraphrases as ' to live with one's guide as the good, the true, and the beautiful is to harmonise with God'. You write "the nature of the creature".
Do you agree that all human babies are born living according to the good, the true, and the beautiful, but that cultures of belief inhibit that natural orientation?

Humanity has always needed mythology/religion for orientation and grounding. The real dangers of mythology/religion are its concretization of the word to serve faith in the negation of mystery. This makes the myth, the religion, something unnatural, for all things change, and that which does not change is a pathology. The astronomer Carl Sagan stated that, "If we are to survive as a species, we must overcome faith." All living things come into this world as innocence, a world where life lives upon, life. Most animals maintain their innocence through their ignorance and remain pure of heart. The human animal maintains through maturation its innocence, not through ignorance, but through compassion for all living things, and yes, a society that does not embrace compassion for all living things corrupts the innocence of the human child.

Exactly. As Matthwew has it:-
Gospel of Matthew 18:3 (KJV):

“Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 25, 2025 10:53 am In my previous post I quoted from the Gospel of Matthew. We are to become as little children. Little children are like wild horses in that both wild horses and little children instinctively know what is the right thing to do, and they do it----until the horse is tamed and the little child is socialised.

What Jesus actually had in mind is made clear by the very next verse (see below). It's about humility. Not "instinct". Not "innocence".

While children often seem more moral than many adults, their "instinct" and "innocence" often lead them to making poor moral decisions. The reason that children seem to be more moral than many adults, is that many adults become largely, if not entirely, corrupted. For example, the vast majority of Christians, especially Evangelical Christians. Consider that Evangelical Christians led and continue to lead the support for a completely unscrupulous buffoon who, for all intents and purposes, is the antithesis of what Jesus calls His followers to become and the epitome of what Jesus warns them against. People like, trust and support people like themselves.

Matthew 18
, 3and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4“Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Jori wrote: ↑Sat Oct 25, 2025 10:29 am Moral relativism appears to lead to contradictory conclusions. For instance, if I say A should B, and you say A should not B, then moral relativism concludes that the statements A should B and A should not B are both true. I believe in moral absolutism which says that objective moral truths exist. However, I am also a moral skeptic in that I don't know what are the absolute moral truths. I simply have a moral code which seems highly reasonable, without knowing with certainty that they are true. I am open to change, but meanwhile, I assume they are true until proven false.

Except that would be a strange use for the term "moral relativism". You seem to be using it for a single moral system which is internally inconsistent. More usually we mean:

MORE THAN ONE moral system, each appearing to be consistent, but not with each other. We do not see how we can argue one is correct and the other not. Especially when it is often the case that they usually agree rather well, only sometimes differ.

Note that important here is that "in situations where we can see no morally relevant difference". That is often the source of the disagreements. Because the different moral systems have different bases, one might decide "the difference between situation is morally relevant" while the other decide not. << in other words, not just different rules/procedures AFTER that is decided but also before >>

You are saying you are not a moral relativist because you are only skeptical about ONE moral system (the one you think is correct). Do you REALLY mean to claim surer knowledge that the other contenders for "the correct moral system" are incorrect ? You aren't SKEPTICAL about those, you KNOW they are incorrect?

Moral relativism is what it is because the world is not yet a community with a common humanity at its centre. The end of Empire and Western colonization in this interdependent and interrelated world is what is needed. The BRICS federation is looking at cooperation as the golden thread for a brighter future. A world as a community. Ultimately, it is the community that decides morality as that which holds the community together. Community is a biological extension, a biological expression of the nature of humanity, a creation. This creation reflects an idealism as a social contract that serves and is served by the population. Today, community is the goal.

Response to MikeNovak. To clarify, I meant to say that I follow a certain moral system, but because I am a skeptic, I do not claim to know with certainty that it is true. Also, since I am skeptic, I do not claim that other moral systems are false. In other words, I can be wrong, and they can be right.