Luiseach

Hi John:

I saw this and wanted to ask a couple of questions.

Are moral behaviours in humans as varied as you seem to suggest? Are there no moral behaviours we all share, despite social, cultural, environmental differences?

As for the Praying Mantis...I don't agree that non-human creatures can be judged within the parameters of human moral systems. How can a Mantis's behaviour be considered moral or immoral, in your view?

John Page

Frotiw:

Yes, the "red line" did not comprehensively provide replacements for all traditional religion's functions and so the emerging communist society was somewhat crippled. So it seems human society does need the values to function more effectively (whatever that is!). I think there is room for a more rational approach to developing and improving that moral fabric . Hmmm. Conscious control of what we think.... now there's a thought!

Cheers, John

John Page

Cannibalism, Despotism, Pacifism, Democracy....
By degrees, I expect, (more or less compassionate etc.) yes. I accept that we are all human - what triggered me to respond was Bill's mention of "every surviving creature."
I wish merely to respond with the question as to how human behavior can be considered moral or immoral.

Cheers, John

Luiseach

Thanks for the reply, John, and for the clarification of your points.

Regarding the variations in human behaviour, and taking cannibalism as an example...just because a culture (or even just a person) believes that cannibalism is moral (or at least not immoral), does that mean it is necessarily moral?

Regarding your response about the morality or immorality of human behaviour: I think one way we can judge is by a consideration of the consequences of actions. What say you?

John Page

I am a moral relativist. I do not regard any appeal to higher authority or judgement as resolving issues of right or wrong.

Formal and informal laws can be used as touchstones for pragctical or pragmatic judgements, but this does not vest any "absolute power" in the courts or other bodies that are empowered to make judgements.

To answer your questions. 1. The morality of cannibalism should be ascertained in relation to the societies in question and the circumstances of the act. 2. Yes, we can judge behavior by considering its consequences but whether that behavior is considered moral or immoral comes back to the societal context.

Cheers, John

Bill

I think you misunderstand my assertion(s) here.

Every species begins with a need to survive, and based on various factors, each species has its own food-gathering strategy, reproductive strategy, and so forth. You are speaking of the variation in the specific strategies of various species, but no species would survive if it did not have a set of strategies to allow it to successfully compete for its own particular niche in the overall environment. Thus, any species which lacks the commandment to survive will almost certainly disappear as soon as it is subjected to competition for the resources it needs to survive.

Accordingly, my assertion (above) was that the need for human survival, in competiton with other species, is what drives the development of human morality, and is thus the "foundation" of human morality. I said nothing at all about specific moral rules (i.e., the societies where Cannibalism, Despotism, Pacifism, Democracy, or any other system or moral rule set prevailed). I said only that each such moral rule set ultimately grounds itself in the need for human survival (or, in the case of specific groups of humans, the need for the survival of those specific groups).

And when different groups come into competition with each other, their respective moral rule sets become part and parcel of the characteristics which ultimately determine the outcome of the competition. If you believe in memetics, then those moral rule sets are memes, and they are selected for in the marketplace of ideas much as standard evolutionary competition selects for genes.

But no, I never intended to necessarily imply that there was a "one size fits all" moral rulebook. Any number of varying sets of rules can work for their respective social groups. The only question is the outcome of the competition between groups of humans and between humans and other species we might come into competition with. And again, in those cases, survival is the real foundational question.

== Bill

Frotiw

A preleminary warning: I will proberly blashemically rip varius opinions from Nietzsche(having him somewhat "present" in the back of my mind) Also I am in a mood of rambling.

I just read the original post again and I sincerly think there are some interesting topics hence I will again focus on the OP. As for your confusion and concernedness I congratulate you you show signs of health. However I don't think the answer is choosing or producing a new religion or belief system. I think it's a pseudo-choice If you realize and embraze you own psychological analysis of religions you must be reluctant to join religions all together. It's a matter of intellectual honesty. Accepting the psychological explanation thereby demasking religion as illusorical how can you still believe in the religion, feel the need for a religion. That is believing in the illusorical well knowing it is illusorical. It seems somewhat contradictorical to believe in a illusion knowing it is a illusion. Usually an illusion appears to an illusion in as much as it is taken to be truth. If that is not the case the difference between illusion and truth seems to vanish.
I think the situation is THE great question of modern age. "God is death" and as consequence so are the values even still bruttaly promoted in philosophy, ideology, romatic art and everywhere else. Living in the modern* age we seem to be pretty "coreless". our quest is to assign value to the world that we may live with. Obviosly such values are contingent projections of our own but atleast we will have influence on them and not have to experience the brutal clash of realizing the death of god. Not only will we have to construct new values we will also have to keep us reminded that we imposes them upon the world and not the other way around. Also we will have to construct them without a fundament. Not only is there no fundament as we are living in the modern age(secularized) we will also have to steer clear of fundaments as they are in principle destructable and hence will suffer same fate as god. As it has been noted, It was not Nietzsche who killed god, but the attempts of rationally proving the existance god by the theologists(e.g. Thomas Aquinas). He was continuosly dying from the very moment there was a need to justify his existance. Nietzsche was merely the towncrier perhaps only attemping to inform the puplic of the late god. -Not at all succeding. Moral suffers the same fate the problem of moral arise in the moment that morallity is questioned. It is just a matter of growing suspicion til moral will be concidered among santa clause and ferries.
Again concerning the values it's not just a strictly personal "existential crisis" modern science is not much less dependant on values, just concider the urge for truth, and rationality above falseness and irrationality. Why does the scientist eager science. How can anyone still believe in romance and love haven't you heard of darwinism and naturalistic theories on sex selection. You may also concider the western world confidently marching and acting in the name of the free world and human rights. Sure I have much sympathy for human rights however they lack any fundamental groundpills, they are built upon nothing they stand on high prais upon nothing but our praise. That is the crisis of modern age, the crisis of values. And yes Descartes may say that the cogito is an absolutte fundament but only if you accept the already established method of rational enquiry. You may tear down the cogito argument it is just a matter of asking "hard enough". So what is the role of the philosopher must he be the one "asking hard enough", tearing down that which cannot stand or must he be priest of the secularized age. Must he reinforce our notion of illusorical values just like the romantic artist reinforce our illusion of "one true love"and "eternal love and marriage" or the socialist ideologist reinforce the hope of a paradise of solidarity and abandonment of social classes. The optimism of progression in history, everything will eventually get better, socialism and modern science alike. How christian!

Heh, I hope this has been rambling in the "good" sence of the word.

*originates from "mode" something that change. -Roughly.

Cheers,

Frotiw

John Page

Bill:
What drove me to respond was your phrase "biochemical commandments".
I concur, but are you saying memes are "biochemical commandments"?

I prefer to think of moral rules as embedded behavior traits that can be turned on and off. We can "behave" (speak) in different languages and have similar capability to behave in accordance with a number of sets of moral norms. Kids behave differently on the playground with their peers than with their parents, for example.

To the extent that we can consider moral behavior as determined by memes then what of the nature of memes? I consider them more as mental patterns, not biochemical patterns. (Please note my original caveat on genetic predisposition, though).

I would like to offer some links that I had to the outcomes of simluations of different behaviors from dominant through cooperative to submissive, but I can't find them. Anyway, the conclusion was that given flexibility of each individual to behave in each way the group overall will tend to produce a mix the slightly dominant side of cooperative....

Now I'll stop because its late and I'm rambling.

Cheers, John

Cheers, John

Luiseach

Societal context....I think I'm something of a reluctant moral relativist. I appreciate the logic of the position. I agree that behaviour can sometimes be judged as either moral or immoral in relation to circumstances. Even my comment about moral judgments based on consequences is, when I look at it again, a relativistic stance. Consequences are part of the context and circumstances, after all.

At the same time, however, and please remember that I'm a strong atheist (and therefore concede that we cannot appeal to higher authorities in the sky regarding what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'), I can't help feeling uneasy about the idea that some acts (such as, for instance, female castration, the death penalty, etc., etc.) are just plain wrong and horrid, whatever the circumstances.

On the other hand, if I think about it again, female castration/mutilation is wrong in relation to its effects on women and women's personhood, so again, I guess I'm still thinking within the boundaries of the relativistic paradigm.

Okay, John, I agree with you. Moral relativism works.

I even asked my husband about this (he's a philosopher), and although his specialty is philosophy of religion, some of his work demands that he consider morality and ethics. He pointed out to me that moral relativism is often strawmanned as an anything-goes-position, which is a misrepresentation of the stance.

Thanks for the wee discussion.

John Page

You're welcome - just goes to prove I can't be [b]all[/b[ bad!