Calling all philosophers - a question about normative values/morality.

[Rantmum]

I am very clearly not a philosopher, but I have been trying to sort out a vaguely philosophical question in my head and need some direction!

I believe quite strongly in what I think are fairly fundamental values, human rights and that there must be some universal truths about what is right and wrong - these things inform our judicial system etc, so many of them are ingrained in our culture. For me, these beliefs do not stem from any religious convictions, although I suppose most morality across cultures is found in religious texts. However, this is where my question emerges; if you divorce morality from religion does it exist at all? Are the things that I believe in really stemming from universal truths or is a common human morality a fiction.

If it is a fiction, if we all get to decide for ourselves, then should I just abandon my set of beliefs and with what should I replace them? And if we all did this, would we not just have anarchy?

Sorry I am having a minor existential crises and the fact that I am have never really studied philosophy does not help.

[QuintessentialShadow]

I studied morality and philsophy of mind eons ago, so will watch this thread. And ponder.

[SueBaroo]

A fiction sounds like a term of disparagement - perhaps it would help to see it more like an 'instinct', developed over millenia and stored somehow in our gene-memory?

Fwiw, I had the same sort of dilemma and ended up a convinced theist, though I'm not sure how that helps you.

[Yummers]

'if you divorce morality from religion does it exist at all?'

your question implies that morality is firstly firmly 'married' to religion. Also 'morality' is a very broad term with a whole host of possible connotations.

I don 't think i can answer your question in its entirety but I can give you an example. Kantian ethics is based around a universal law which doesn't presuppose the existence of god. To sum it up it's the old maxim 'do to others as you would have them do to you'. Whether or not you believe in God i think most people would agree that this is a pretty good principle to start from. Many people have lived and will continue to live 'moral' lives by following this principle although they are not religious people. So the short answer to your question is 'Yes'.

Of course we could then get into a big minefield by questioning what you mean by morality 'existing' as of course it isn't a physical entity and would only 'exist' for as long as the individual was acting according to Kant's principles...

[Rantmum]

Your right, Yummers my question did imply that morality is married to religion. Given the history of the world is of one governed by beliefs in some sort of deity/ies, or karma, and that these beliefs seem to have informed almost all moral guidance in history until the very recent past (ie the 18th century - you mention Kant who I have never really read or studied) and ideas about morality (ie, justice etc) vary from culture to culture and religion to religion, it makes me wonder where human ideas of morality stem from, is it from religion, or is it driven by the need to live in communities and thereby have rules that govern society, or is it something inate in the human psyche that we are all born with, like our physical body organs?

I know I am very muddled and philosophical thought tends to leave me more muddled rather than less, so I wish that I could turn my under-functioning brain off when I start to worry about this sort of stuff!

[Rantmum]

You're right. See, muddled, muddled underfunctioning brain!

[stuffitall]

The question is basically I think ..

is there such a thing as an independent "good" against which all human action can be measured

or is it a relative condition

to reducto ad absurdum:

is murder always wrong
or if the majority of people approved of murder would that make it not wrong

utilitarianism focusses on the maximisation of human happiness as the source of "good"

that is, whatever gives the maximum number of people the maximum amount of happiness the maximum amount of time is "good".

which is a very fulfilling philosophy until it leads you to accept the goodness of a hypothetical situation involving a large number of people being made very happy by an "evil" act against a small number of people

so we CAN say that good is not some democratic and relativist process

so there must be some inate sense of "goodness" in us, an absolute good, which is separate from the relative and from human satisfaction

i ascribe this to God but I maintain that atheists must also subscribe to the philosophy of an "absolute good" quite apart from the human condition unless they are to fall into the pitfall of the "democratic good".

i should be hoovering

[stuffitall]

and i can't spell innate
even that looks wrong now

[Acinonyx]

I got into my current field of evolutionary anthropology largely via an interest in moral philosophy and ethics. I adhere to the view that there are no objective moral values ? no absolute or universal truths. Although I am an atheist, I think Sue is using the right term ? instinct. Humans have innate (but highly variable!) capacities which both produce and necessitate moral codes. These capacities arise from our relatively complex social behaviour and cognition and include empathy, compassion, cooperation, altruism, reciprocity and punishment. Our complex group sociality leads to a need for codes which address the common good as well as the good of the individual.

There is bound to be some consensus since we are all human beings but that consensus will never be 100% and moral values will always potentially differ between the individual and the group (be that a family, community, state or religious group). Thus people everywhere generally agree that killing is wrong but differ in the specifics. All communities recognise the need for punishment to protect the individual and the public good but again, differ in the specifics. That is something we just have to deal with as best we can.

In tying morality to religion, IMO that is putting the cart before the horse (and religion has many other functions ? to digress slightly ? the agenda of any given religion/religious institution will dictate the nature of the moral code it enforces which inevitably is highly problematic).

That?s my take on this, anyway. I recommend the following books on this topic: Matt Ridley?s ?The origins of virtue? or Robin Wright?s ?The moral animal?.

[stuffitall]

Hi Acinonyx.

The idea that "what works for us at the moment" is appealing, pragmatic and grounded in the history of morality it's true.

It means though that there is no such thing as "goodness". Do you agree?

[stuffitall]

So you can't even say that something is good, or not good, as you have nothing to measure it against.

So you work on the basis of what allows society to function, or what makes people happy, and when it ceases to work, you change it? Evolutionary morality I guess it might be called.

[Acinonyx]

I don't think there is any such thing as an absolute or objective standard of goodness, no. There are universals only in the sense that there are basic issues and similarities common to all human groups both temporally and geographically.

Current ethics will be a form of consensus - but a difficult one given that different groups within a larger community, such as a nation state, have different moreal codes. There are different ways of constructing a democratic moral code, which in a nation state is reflected in legislation, just as there are different ways of constructing democracy - that is all just details.

You say that you believe in an absolute, innate sense of gooness that isn ot relative but I am not clear how you arrive at this conclusion. My impression is that you think this because you prefer a world where this is true than one where my version is true. It seems to me that this is very often how people arrive at this view. If it were only a matter of personal eithics and behaviour that would not be a problem - but it isn't and it never is. Therefore I think it is a dangerous an misguided view that opend the door to extremism and intransigence of all kinds.

[Acinonyx]

My spelling and typing also leaves a lot to be desired...

[dinny]

start with Hobbes

[Acinonyx]

I think Hobbes was a little pessimistic even by my standards.

[stuffitall]

Interesting. Actually my impression is that many people who claim to believe in a relativist morality behave and speak to others as though there IS an absolute good, and can be quite prone to sit in judgement on others on all sorts of issues.

I'm dipping in and out but let's take a case. Female circumcision. Wrong or right?

Right, required, in some cultures.
Wrong, deplored, in ours.

So.. good or bad?

[dinny]

To someone that hasn't read Hobbes or Locke (assuming the OP hasn't...?) I'd definitely start with Hobbes - it is then easier to put Locke in context.

[OverMyDeadBody]

This is very interesting. Now although I'm not as good at getting my thoughts down and won't sound as clever as stuffitall or Acinonix, here's my view: I'm a secular humanist (not an atheist, but that's a different thread)and believe wholeheartedly that ethics and morality - or goodness - do not have to be tied to religious belief. In fact, my view on this is that the ethics and morals came first, and religious beliefs through the centuries where built on a pre-existing need and desire to be 'good', religion gives people a reason to be good, an external motivation, but this doesn't mean that internat intrinsic motivations to be good don't also exist. Look at children, they want to be good quite often, even when an external reward isn't there. I don't know if I'm making much sense

In answer to the OP though, I don't think we would have anarchy if we get to decide for ourselves what it means to be 'good' (as this imples that at the moment everyone isn't deciding for themselves, but a lot of people are)

Let's not forget, religious belief is also often used as an excuse to be 'bad' and harm others and act immorally or unethically. Perhaps taking away the protection of religion that people hide behind when committing 'bad' acts wouldn't be such a bad thing?

[OverMyDeadBody]

Female circumcision, right or wrong?

It's not the circumsision that is either right or wrong, it's whether or not it is that person's choice to be circumsised. Taking away something belonging to someone else without their permission is wrong. whether it is their freedom, their property, or their clitoris.

It's about human rights isn't it?

[OverMyDeadBody]

I don't think there is an absolute good, and I don't like the utilitarianist view of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people either.

I will seek out hobbes and Locke

[stuffitall]

I agree that female circumcision is wrong. It's wrong whether it takes place here, or in its home culture, and as it normally happens to children, that means no informed consent.

In believing it to be wrong, I set it against a standard of "goodness" against which it falls.

However in its home culture it has a function, it has evolved, the majority of people wish it to happen. So in relativist morality, it is not wrong.

But presumably, with a relativist world view, if it takes place outside of its home culture, it is wrong.

So whether or not it is wrong or right depends solely on where it happens.

I can't subscribe to this view, and couldn't do even if I was not a Christian.

Deadbody I was very interested in your post, and agree that religion should be divorced from the argument, as it is so often used to justify acts we would consider "wrong" when judged against an absolute good.

[stuffitall]

Not sure you'll find much solace in Hobbes deadbody

by the way how long have you been deadbody? it's rather a gruesome name x am fairly new so don't know you so hope you don't mind me asking

[Acinonyx]

Deadbody - that is pretty much my view and if I ever joing any kind of group it will most likely be the secular humanists.

Stuffit - you actually illustrate the problem from my POV well with that example. I agree with Dead that FC violates our notion of human rights. But of course even that notion is essentially a western consensus and is not acknowledged or accepted by many communities worldwide.

Having accepted that our notion of ethics and rights (and duties) is culturally bound and relative that does not mean that we can never assert our view. The real crux of the matter is what you acept as being reasonable in backing up these notions. With FC for example (with which I am very familiar having livind in north Africa) we can lobby and promote and explain our views ad nauseum, taking advantage of local groups with similar views. But we do not advocate going into these communities and changing their bevhaviour by force.

You have to realise that there are countless issues on all sides that violate a seemingly 'innate sense of goodness'. There are people who see wester sexual morality and behaviour, the apparent disintegration of the family, and lack of care for children and the elderly as violating their innate sense of goodness - and that this cultural malaise is like a cancer that should be cut out of the world or else will spread. What should they do about that do you think?

And many others see the economic and military beahviour of the west as being directly responsible for the suffering, misery and death of countless millions - how do you think they should respond to that?

We are, inevitably, pitched into a war of ideas, especially now that the world has become a village. But better a war of ideas perhaps than a war with bombs, although many, many people outseide the west would say that our ideas have produced the same kind of carbage - so why not use weapons to fight back?

If an issue such as FC is so innately wrong - we wouldn't even have these problems to start with. It's precisely because there is no innate sense of gooness that we get into these diffiulties - otherwise we would all agree.

Dh is demanding I come and help dd with breakfast (he is making pancakes). Must go.

[Acinonyx]

oh dear - carnage not cabbage....

[Nighbynight]

I think this question would be clarified by getting rid of the word "morality" and applying a mixture of logic and compassion to such decisions. Logic takes account of local situations, compassion is universal.

The relative/absolute argument, in my opinion, is more relevant to the question of rights than "morals" whatever those are.

Female circumcision? Right if the recipient wants it, wrong otherwise. So this comes down to a question of rights, rather than right.

[Acinonyx]

Agreed except that the notion of rights is not universal and is itself founded on ethics.

Individual rights are always in balance against the collective and colective rights invariably involve control and punishment. What I'm trying to get at, is that we have a problem justifying a use of force against those outside our group on the grounds of an apparent violation of a universal standard - be that a moral value or an issue of human rights when that 'universal standard' is not acknowledged by that other gruop.

Other than that, we are free to assert that FC etc is wrong. But to me, the whole point of debating ethics is that real actions in the real world come as a consequence.

I'm being hounded for a story...