Do Morals Matter?

[bossk]

kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=254985#254985

This feels like it's getting a bit beyond the scope of the Gap thread Usivius started, so I thought I'd see if anyone wants to take a crack at it here.

[Nathan]

Do morals matter? Yes, without them there would be a lot of people doing things that would make my life very uncomfortable.

However, I don't think morals should matter. They're not necessary to a smooth running world. I'd rather have people look at the consequences of their actions and decide whether to take them than having people not do things because they are "right" and "wrong" as decided by their parents or their holy book.

This is because people who have learned that something is right or wrong without a reason will carry on believing that it's right or wrong without a reason.

[bossk]

I think there should be more of a parameter than "consequences". If you can kill someone and take his stuff without getting caught, does that make it OK? There is no consequence to you - in fact your life will probably be more "comfortable" as you like to say.

While saying this, I will agree that using a "holy book" to decide what is right/wrong does not sit well with me either. And your parents could be wrong, too. I guess I personally (and maybe naively) use the "how would I like it if the roles were reversed?" scenario.

[Cagliostro]

I don't mean to be a butt, but I'm a little confused over this topic. To whom, is my question.

For us humans as a race, morals might matter. But it is impossible to view a world without them, as I feel our sense of "right and wrong" determine a lot of our thought, but maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe to be clearer, incorrect

For instance, do you think if we had no concept of right and wrong that people would start killing people left, right and center? Hard to say. Laws and enforcers of those laws were created for a reason, obviously, but would it really become pure chaos if we didn't? I've always wondered about this, mainly from trying to understand what a land mass without a government would be like, brought on by anarchist writers. It is hard to determine...here we go again...if it would be a "good thing" or a "bad thing."

Beyond the scope of our own existence as humans though, it probably doesn't matter. But then again, do animals have morals? Who can say? Would the complete breakdown of the web o' life really matter? And to whom? Umm...if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around, does it make a sound?

I think I've gotten to esoteric. Maybe we should rope it back before I prove I don't exist and disappear.

[Nathan]

There is no consequence to you - in fact your life will probably be more "comfortable" as you like to say.

I wouldn't be comfortable living with the guilt of having killed someone.

[onewyteduck]

First of all, shouldn't you distinguish between laws and morals? There are things that aren't illegal that many consider immoral. For example, it's against the law to commit murder but it is not against the law to be gay (or I believe, in most societys) but many consider it immoral.

We need laws, certainly (and by no means are all laws reasonable!) but as to whether or not morals matter, I think that is all up to your own POV and how you or yours might be affected.

[Cail]

However, I don't think morals should matter. They're not necessary to a smooth running world. I'd rather have people look at the consequences of their actions and decide whether to take them than having people not do things because they are "right" and "wrong" as decided by their parents or their holy book.

OK, well that being the case I'm going to pop over to England, kill you and rape your family and not feel a second's remorse. I'm a sociopath, you see.

Morals matter, and they're absolutely crucial to a smooth running society.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

*bamf* JemCheeta Appears! To fight the good fight against morality! Fear his 3v1l!


Anyway....


Nathan, once again I'm with you 100% on the morals/consequences thing.

What are the consequences of endorsing murder and rape? Risk of murder and rape. Also, that doesn't even take into account what commiting rape and murder does to the person who commits those acts. The psychological profile is NOT pleasant. These are not happy, well adjusted people.

I think you don't have to stretch logic too far to find arguments against most of the things that black/white morality forbids.

[Edge]

Huh? You say you're arguing against morality, then proceed to present an argument for it.

[Plissken]

Morals are, and always have been, defined by whatever tribe you define yourself as belonging to.

Im other words, killing is absolutely and without a doubt, WRONG.

Unless the murder is carried out about by folks with your own best se;f-imtrest at heart. Then it's okay.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

That's true Edge, I guess that's true. You could even go so far as to say that I believe in a morality inherent in creation.

If by that you would mean a morality inherent in the relationship between the human brain and the physical world.

[Zarathustra]

There is no inherent right or wrong in the universe. If there were, then we could just observe it, measure it, codify it, and never have to argue about it ever again.

But obviously, people have always fought over what is right and wrong (usually while claiming that fighting is wrong) and they will continue to do so. If right and wrong were actual objective features of reality, then most likely there would be no debate.

Morality is COMPLETELY subjective. We either make it up ourselves, or accept someone else's definition (which either that person made up or got from someone else, etc.).

Basically, morality is a list of stuff we don't like. Some cultures have no problem with public nudity, for example, while others don't really care for it. It's just a matter of taste (and temperature, perhaps).

Some people really don't like killing, while others have no problem with it. It's really no deeper than that. People who try to claim that morality is universal and absolute are just trying to impose their own personal morality on everyone else.

Society could easily get along without morality. Look at other animals, they manage just fine without it, even in complex "social" structures. Say, a bee hive, for instance. Those things run with precision, even though there's not one group of bees telling everyone else how they should behave.

But human cities are not bee hives, you might say. Okay, that's why we need LAWS, which protect your rights from getting violated by others. However, this is distinct from morality in that laws do not impose upon you a standard of behavior in areas where no one's rights are being violated (like consentual adult sex), whereas morality extends beyond the protection of rights into personal behavior. Big difference--at least, it should be a big difference. Far too often, we legislate morality rather than rights' protection (for instance "vice" laws like gambling laws, prostitution laws, etc.) where no one's rights are being violated, but the lawmakers still feel like they should control people's behavior.

To ME, this is extremely immoral: trying to forcibly control someone else's behavior. But, paradoxically, this is the whole purpose of morality. Which is why I say not only do we not need it, but it is itself inherently immoral, because it presupposes the "right" to impose restrictions on others' freedom. Morality is a contradictary fable.

[Cail]

Fine, then are laws immoral for the same reason? It presupposes that personal desires are less important than some arbitrary "greater good".

I'd also point out that we're a bit more intellectually advanced than bees, so that's a rather poor example. Bees lack both intelligence and emotion.

[Zarathustra]

Some laws are immoral, sure, because they restrict freedom for the sole purpose of behavior modification according to some principle (usually religious) that has nothing to do with rights protection.

However, laws in general are not immoral, because (ideally) they are there to protect rights, not to limit freedom. They are there for protection, not control (again, ideally).

Sure, in protecting someone's rights, you are going to limit someone else's freedom to violate those rights, but my rights trump your freedom to violate my rights, so there is no contradiction. In other words, you don't have the right to violate my rights, otherwise no one has rights.

[Zarathustra]

Also, I'm not talking about a "greater good" or "good of the society." I'm talking about protecting INDIVIDUAL rights. I'm not a collectivist in any sense. I don't believe you can legislate behaviors that "benefit" society--because inevitably this always benefits only certain portions of society while hurting others. For instance, you might make the claim that gambling laws serve the "greater good" by forcing people not to waste their money. But this only helps those who don't have money to blow, while it hurts those who own the casinos and those of us with disposable cash to blow on a good time.

And yes, bees aren't as complex as we are, that's why I said bee hives aren't human cities, and went on to qualify my points by talking about laws. However, bees are an example of a complex, sustainable social structure without morality. Whether or not they have emotions, though, is up for debate. I don't know what it is like to be a bee.

[Cail]

Sure, in protecting someone's rights, you are going to limit someone else's freedom to violate those rights, but my rights trump your freedom to violate my rights, so there is no contradiction. In other words, you don't have the right to violate my rights, otherwise no one has rights.

This is where your argument falls apart. Morality and laws are based on the concept of not harming (for lack of a better word) others. We as a society agree to limit our personal freedom to protect others. To use the public nudity issue, seeing somebody's naughty parts doesn't do any harm per se, one could even argue that it doesn't violate anyone's rights, yet for some reason, that behavior is curbed via morality and law.

Part of the issue is defining exactly what constitutes a right. People have expanded the meaning to include all sorts of really silly things that have nothing to do with the historical meaning of the word, or with what the framers of our government had in mind.

Edit-The point is, what makes your "right" any more or less valid than my "right"? The answer is nothing. This is where morality and laws and societal norms come into play.

[Edge]

Malik: you seem to have this odd idea that morality is something necessarily imposed on people against their will.

Do you have any concept at all of a personal moral code?

Or do you think that rape, murder, theft, etc. are only considered wrong by society because of some outmoded code of ethics?

[Zarathustra]

I'm not sure exactly what "falls apart" in my argument, even though you've pointed out where.

Morality and laws are based on the concept of not harming (for lack of a better word) others.

This is true for laws, but not morality. Morality is also concerned with not harming yourself, and specifically, your "soul." This is clearly distinct from laws.

Part of the issue is defining exactly what constitutes a right.

I agree. And perhaps there are paradoxical issues when trying to define them. For instance, despite our Declaration of Independence, I don't believe we have inalienable rights. I think we just agree to grant them to each other. We exchange forebearance, in other words. You don't hurt me and I won't hurt you. Rights are a kind of truce. But there is nothing necessary or absolute or inalienable about them.

And while morality is much the same (not absolute, etc.), it goes beyond "don't hurt me and I won't hurt you" by imposing "don't hurt yourself or I will hurt (punish) you." That, to me, is contradictory, while the former is not.

[Zarathustra]

Malik: you seem to have this odd idea that morality is something necessarily imposed on people against their will.
Do you have any concept at all of a personal moral code?

I think that morality as purely a personal code hardly ever happens in reality. Let's say that you have a spouse. For you, "adultery is morally wrong" is a personal code. Are you telling me that you have no expectation whatsoever of that moral code also being shared by your spouse? Sure, maybe your spouse willingly agrees to this same personal code, but don't you still expect it? Would you marry someone who didn't share this "personal" code?

On a broader scale, we wouldn't be having a national debate about gay marriage if people would just keep their morals to themselves. Yet, there are millions of Americans--who are not gay--who think they have a right to impose their own personal morality upon millions of other Americans.

Personal moral codes are fine. Keep it to yourself, and I've got no complaint. However, we wouldn't be talking about it on the Internet if people kept them to themselves.

[Cail]

Ahhh, I see. You're (I think) making some sort of connection between a moral code and religion or faith. While morality certainly can include those ideals, it doesn't necessarily have to. I also disagree that morality includes some sort of consequence.

It's the whole tree-falling-in-the-forest argument. Rape is illegal. I'd argue that rape is also immoral. If I rape someone and get away with it, it's still wrong, even though there's no consequence to me. Now, we can expand the conversation to include religious teachings that pretty much universally are anti-rape, and the spiritual consequences of the violation, but that's a different topic.

Take the Crusades or the Inquisition for instance. They were legal, they were supported by a faction of the Church, but they were clearly immoral.