airhead

I've often wondered what it would be like to transcend morality. To leave morality behind. A relic for future historians to ponder, and wonder at how difficult our ignorance must have been.
What would it mean, to surpass the need of morality? What would it look like?
Would we have to be Spock-like hyper-rationalists, or could it be something quite subtle, like a kind of clarity?
I disregard the idea that civilization is dependent upon morality for its existence (and suspect not even for its flourishing).
As much as I dislike this cliche, what sort of paradigm shift might entail the dissolution of what we call morality....?
Any thoughts?

hammodius

Perhaps it would involve a paradigm shift, or perhaps only the acquisition of knowledge.... What if we can isolate the "moral" sensor in our brains, meaning the thing that when it fires makes us feel rewarded/punished internally, righteous or guilty. Once we've identified it, we can trigger it at will, leaving us free to act without moral constraints. Somewhat like being able to take drugs to override tiredness, or being able to make sugar-free foods that still taste sweet. If we could manipulate our moral sense directly (by doing something science-fiction-ish to our brainwaves, say), we could emancipate ourselves from the need to behave a certain way to satisfy the dictates of conscience. We could base our decisions on a-moral concerns yet still enjoy the satisfaction of our moral sense.

IsItJustMe

Hmmm... I really think we would be doomed in that case. Honestly, like most parts of our brains, they exist because we are more likely to survive if we have them. Now, some of the bits in our brains may be becoming less relevant over time, but I would guess this one is becoming MORE relevant. I mean, I just read some study that says pretty soon most people will be living in cities. Can you imagine people living in cities with no morality? What a mess that would be!

airhead

Well, what i'm thinking about is getting beyond morality, not just chucking it for no good reason. The idea implies that we no longer need it, much like we no longer need a belief in a god. It would be positive. And I sure don't think that Darwinian evolution ought to be our yardstick. Leaving evolution completely up to the blind forces of natural selection is something we don't want to do, if we don't have to. Maybe we could direct our evolution towards
becoming more rational creatures.

IsItJustMe

Well, I think this is how it stands:

1. For a group of people to interact, they need a set of rules, a sort of protocol for interacting if you will. (I think you agree to that.)

2. I think that's pretty much what a morality is.

3. Therefore there is no getting past morality.

Now, it may be possible to get past guilt, just by getting hold of a morality that doesn't involve that, that just says the past is not worth worrying about; only the future is important. That's a tough job but one I, myself, would like to see done.

As far as ending up like Vulcans, I would hate that. For one thing I don't think I'd have any romantic interest in a Vulcan whatsoever. (Although there are undoubtedly people in this world who would disagree with me, at least as far as short-term relationships are concerned...) But even Vulcans have to have a code, a morality, right? The just don't get at all emotional about it.

knowitall

I agree, IsItJustMe. That's like saying "if we could just transcend the imprisoning walls of this 'fairness' concept, we'd all be so much better off."

knowitall

(quick addition)

If there is no criterion for establishing what is "fair".. on what basis does one assert we'd be "better off" without some criterion for establishing what is "better."

airhead

why must "better" and "fair" be moral ideas? Couldn't they be (better) served by a purely rational agent without any appeal to any moral system?
If yor geranium needs water, it is not moral to water it, nor is it immoral to not water it. It is simply rational to water it if you want to have a geranium.

Taking it further:
If your child is hungry, it is neither moral nor immoral to give or not-give her food. It is rational to do so, because you love your child and you want her to be well. If you withheld food from your child because you wanted to hurt or kill her, then your actions are not immoral; rather, they reveal mental/emotional illness for which you need some intensive treatment.

To say "water is better than whiskey for geraniums" requires no morality. It is simply a fact, given what we know about the needs of geraniums.

ContraBull

Every time you choose. You choose A over B. You choose because, all things are scarce. You cannot do two things at once. Ect. Everytime you choose you make a value judgment. What to drink, to live, to die, ect. Over time you build preferences. These preferences are morality. Groups of people also build prefernces and pass them down to offspring. This is culture. Culture develops when a population chooses to leave each other alone and not kill one another, allowing each person to develop his/her own preferences. Thus valuing culture and civilization require having certain values. You cannot choose whatever morality you want, without consequenses.

engly-saxo

Isn't logic, to a degree, subjective?

Hitler probably thought it was logical to exterminate Jews, yet I doubt the Jews killed would have agreed. In essence, logic can be used to justify anything.