LoopHooligan

Hi

My first question, so be kind.

I have been reading Kant recently and it seems to me that he takes morality as a given. By this I mean that he sees morality as a necessity and it is only a question of what moral code to chose and not whether it is necessary to act morally at all ie. Is it stupid to behave badly?
Can any one help me by outlining answers to this question?
Without wishing to exclude theists from this discussion, I am looking for alternatives to “god says we should” and not an argument about whether that is true or not.

Starboy

Hi Loop,

Yes it is a given for the simple reason that we are social animals. It is extremely rare for individuals to live completely by themselves. When this happens most people go crazy. Because we are social animals and because we form such an elaborate and extensive network of social groups (i.e. NYC), there must be behaviors in place to keep the whole thing from melting down into a puddle of discord. Thus morals are the cultural basis of necessary social behaviors. I would suspect that all social animals possess them to some degree, the degree being determined by the amount and necessity of social interaction within the group of animals.

Starboy

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

K

LoopHooligan:

I would say that morality is an evolved drive. Our ancestors who had the drive to behave in a moral manner were more likely to form groups. Individuals that worked as part of a group were much more likely to survive and reproduce than the antisocial (immoral) ones who had to go it alone. Therefore, I would say that morality is a survival instinct somewhat akin to our other survival instincts.

garthoverman

In my experience, the question is not "Does morality exist?" so much as "Is there a singular objectively superior morality?" Most theists suggest that their God represents the singular, objectively superior moral set, however no proof of such exists. The reality, however, is in subjective morality. While there exists simultaneously competing objective moral systems, with their various parallels and contrasts, the interpretations of the morals systems perceived by each individual is personally unique. Still, those objective moral systems are sets of rather arbitrarily defined prescriptions for behavior, and nobody can validate their necessity beyond any doubt to another individual.

Take "Do not kill humans." - A rather universally accepted moral prescription. However, one may always ask of that prescription "Why?" and only certain presupposed subjective rationales will follow. What if we universally accepted a fact that there was an afterlife and it was unconditionally "better" than this mode of existence? Wouldn't it be doing your friend a favor to send him into that afterlife post-haste?

I'm not advocating any sort of belief in post-mortem experience, I simply hope that this illustrates my response to your question. Concisely, morality is a necessary consequence of posessing a discerning intellect capable of value judgements, and thus a given. It is the singular objectively superior morality that, like God, does not exist.

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: garthoverman ]</p>

Amos

In my Christianity it is believed that the animal man is a solitary individual and it is only because of our human nature that we are social animals. The moral codes prescribed by religion serve a dual purpose, first to redeem the original animal nature of man and second to provide some sort of ordered society wherein we can prosper and so enhance the quality of life for the animal man and its human counterpart.

This explanation allows for the seemingly irrational religious codes of ethics and also why in different civilizations conflicing codes can be effectively justified.

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

pug846

LoopHooligan said:

I’m entirely too lazy to quote Kant in length or really provide anything to back up my answer beyond my memory, but no, Kant didn’t take morality as a “given” anymore than we take the laws of physics to be given. According to Kant, acting moral was the same as acting rational and simply following the categorical imperative that we all have to accept as reasoned, rational creatures.

Starboy said:

Social rules that we tend to follow are not the same as moral oughts.

K said:

Once again, you are making the same category mistake as Starboy. You are arguing that what is moral is what survives, but it wouldn’t take us long to see that certain survival strategies wouldn’t be classified as moral by most of us. If you want to argue for some form of ethical Darwinism, I’d love to see the attempt.

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: pug846 ]</p>

Keith Russell

Greetings:

I think the way one acts (however one acts) can be called one's 'morality'.

One can also act badly, if one has chosen to follow a flawed moral code (and there are plenty of those out there from which to choose...)

Keith.

Rusting Car Bumper

Morality is, in many ways, like language.

We are born without, we have a propensity to learn it without trying, and we learn it simply by being exposed to it.

Humans are born saying oooo,gaaa, gau, and so on and then one day they are saying, "We find these truths to be..."

Like language we learn the "morality" around us. With lanugage we do not stop children from speaking or writing and say "Hey! Diagram this sentence and learn about gerunds before you speak!" We are most happy when they can utter "mama" or "toy!" We teach them by saying, "This is a clock. This is a thermonuclear device." and so on.

So goes for morality as well. We are most happy when they start to shrug off their infant survival mode,they stop thinking everything belongs to them and when they learn to recognize that their actions make others feel badly. We do not say, "Hey! Do you understand if moral statements are absolute or are they rules of thumb that can be dependent on relevant facts?"

Just like language moral structure is dependent on what is going on around them. As such it might not be the same if they grew op in Ohio as opposed to Zimbabwe.

Clearly, morality exists in the same way languge exists. We are born with the ability to learn it quite easily.

DC

K

pug846:

I've probably posted something similar to this a dozen times in these forums already, but here goes.

Animals (including humans) have certain drives for self preservation and procreation. These drives are well pronounced and lead directly to the furthering of the two goals listed above. Any complex species without the aforementioned drives is likely to die out rather quickly.

In addition, there were animals that were able to team up into small groups to provide for protection, and acquisition of food. These groups were better able to survive and reproduce than lone individuals. In order to work and live in groups, there are certain behaviors that, while not immediately beneficial to the individual, allow those individuals to operate as a functioning member of the group.

Therefore, if this line of reasoning is true, a person's morality is just where the line is drawn between satisfying the primary drives and the drives that allow that person to function in society.

That is my naturalistic explanation of morality. It also explains why other social animals sometimes exhibit behavior we would normally associate with morality.

Amos

It is rather bold of you to say that any species that does not comform to your idea of them is likely to die out quickly if they are still around for you to observe them. I would argue that the opposite is true because the greater our need for socialization is the further we are alienated from our own animal identity. For example it would not be clever for foxes to gang up on one chicken nor would it be wise for the lion king to ask for help while on a hunt.