We were talking about morals at tonight's Ideas Cafe. Some points from the discussion:
1. Morals is about how we relate to other "moral agents" in our society. For a person stranded on an island, he does not have any moral considerations as there are nobody else on the island except him. He does have to worry about morals if he include plants and animals on the island as other moral agents as he would then have to worry about not being cruel to them and not wasting them etc. He may also consider himself as a moral agent and therefore do not commit suicide as that will be killing himself as a moral agent.
2. The frequently used connection between sex and morals is actually not correct as morals should only be dealing with actions that result in possible harm to other moral agents. Morality is being incorrectly used to force ownership of women by man. Having lustful thoughts and consensual acts that do not harm others do not fit the definition of an immoral act that bring possible harm to others. Religion was another tool used towards keeping women as men's property.
3. Morals deal with a society with limited resources. If there are unlimited resources and choices, then all acts will be moral as no one will have to choose to do harmful acts to others. It is only in the choice of options involving compromises that the possibility of harm to others arise making an immoral act possible.
4. Morality is dependent on need. Earlier Eskimo practice of the older people sacrificing themselves in order not to be a burden to the rest of the family may seem extreme to us but is a necessity for survival. This is no longer required as our society become more affluent and we can afford to support the weaker members of our society without hurting large segments of the healthy popultion.
5. We feel the moral influences most with those immediately around us and fades as we look further and further beyond our immediate circles.
6. There are societies that respect their dead by eating the flesh of the dead as a sign of respect. They would consider our practice of burying or cremating our dead as disrespectful. It is therefore the intention rather than the act that makes it immoral or moral.
The topic is so big that I thought I would put some of these controversial points out to stimulate discussion rather than doing a long blog piece. We will let the discussion go where the interest is.
Post your thoughts so we can have a discussion!
Oliver,
ReplyDeleteIt is IMPOSSIBLE to discuss “Morals” as a stand-alone topic. Why? Because the definition of morality changes on the fly and that is not mad dog barking! Your blog amply supports my claim.
In point 1, your group already pointed out that morality depends on what you wanted to include for defining morality. Now morality is in shaky ground. In point 2, your group maintained that “Having lustful thoughts and consensual acts that do not harm others do not fit the definition of an immoral act that bring possible harm to others.” So, your thought and therefore your intention does not count since it does not do harm to others. Then point 6 made an exactly opposite argument saying that it is “the intention rather than the act that makes it immoral or moral.”
Point 4 tried to support point 3 of the theory that morality deals with society with limited resources as unlimited resources will eliminate the need to choose harmful act to others. But is it really that simple? Point 5 made the ultimate betrayal of Morality – “moral influences most with those immediately around us and fades as we look further and further beyond” In other word, if you look far enough, there is NO such thing as morality!!
Oliver, the unfortunate thing is human being invented morality. Human is a complex being. Human invented morality to protect his/herself as your point 5 magnificently declared. There is no such thing as morality in the animal kingdom.
It would be a lot easier to examine the morality aspect of say “Is it moral to allow bull fighting?” or “It is certainly cruelty to animal, but is it moral to finance dog fighting as the NFL star Michael Vicks did?” Or even more controversial as “Incest – moral or not?”
Hi Mad Doberman,
ReplyDeleteI am glad you pointed out the inconsistencies listed in the original post. It is what makes discussion on morals interesting as they are all individually true in their own way and yet conflict with each other in the big picture.
Yet we tend to think of morality as a code of conduct that is beyond criticism.
From the definition of what should be included in morals (should sex be in it?) to whether intention plays a pivotal role, there are rich grounds for debate.
I tend to lean towards leaving sex out of moral considerations but concentrate more on morals being involve with "doing good", or "do no harm" to others. Having sex in morals seems manipulative to me and therefore, the explanation of man seeing woman as property and using morals to control woman as a property to man makes sense.
It is also manipulative in controlling man from satisfying one of their basic drives and the guilt that can come from it.
So it is manipulative for both man and woman with the manipulator being organized religion, a social elder, government, or "moral majority" of some kind.
Freedom to entertain different ideas is pretty fundamental for me so thoughts, including lustful ones, entertaining "bad" ideas just for the exercise of considering it and comparing with other ideas will have to be okay with me to preserve the freedom of thought.
However, this does conflict with judging someone's action by their intention rather than the results. A terrorist who intended to kill but fail due to his incompetence is as guilty as the one who accomplished his goal. Whereas someone who accidentally cause an explosion that killed people should not be as guilty.
May be there is a difference between thoughts and intentions? It is one thing to have different thoughts, but when it turns into an intent to see it happen, it crosses a defining line.
Limited resources and consideration of our immediate circles are somewhat related. Should we not give some priority to our immediate family over someone starving in the third world? Is it moral to provide for our children and pay for their university tuition when other people are starving elsewhere?
Morality is a behavior code that somehow we seem to know what it is but hard to nail down with logic. Your example of incest, bull fight, and cruelty to animals are all examples showing we know what the moral answer "should" be but difficult to make it logically coherent.
Where to go from here?
Can we prioritize some of these considerations so that conflicts can be resolved?
Can we achieve some consistency in our moral thinking so that we do the most good if "doing good" is the reason for us to be moral?
Post your ideas and comments so that we can continue the discussion!
Oliver.
Oliver,
ReplyDeleteI can’t help but notice that ever since your blog was first established, there was no contributor other than myself. There are only three followers and two of them are your immediate family members. Didn’t you find that a bit strange in the sense that your group does not seem to care? Could it be the topics are too abstract like “Honesty” and “Morals”?
Call me suspicious, overly sensitive or whatever you want but in the back of my mind, I see a little red flag slowly rising. In one extreme, I see the scenario, in the early 1950, the communist in Red China encouraging people to speak their mind in order to round up the dissidents for execution. In the other extreme, I see a whole bunch of people giggling at a mad dog being teased by the ringmaster. Was it weird or what?
Mad Doberman
Mad Doberman,
ReplyDeleteIt will be quite a ringmaster that can handle a mad dog unleashed.
Good points again.
I appreciate your inputs and encourage others to do the same so that we can have a lively discussion involving more points of view.
However, I am well aware that I am just starting the blog and there are "shy" participants that would rather email me privately rather than posting a comment.
In fact, that was how I got the idea of blogging as I was emailing a food blogger that I was reading and he wrote on his blog that I was "shy". I was simply feeling my way around blogging!
The fact that you are not a follower speaks volumes about why there are only three followers. There are others like you that follow without wanting to be a follower!
It is a free country and people can do what they want. Hopefully, the blog is interesting enough that people will feel like posting and we can have a critical mass going.
In the mean time, your comments are very welcomed. The sound of one hand clapping is infinitely less interesting than two hands!
Oliver.
Oliver,
ReplyDeleteApparently you don’t seem to know much about the “K9” world. There are 2 kinds of “K9” that follow. The most common one are those on leash. The others are the well-trained one. Both types don’t have mad dogs. Mad dogs don’t follow. Mad dogs roam around on their own; barking and biting at will. People label them “Mad” because they don’t behave as what people want. In reality, they are just being honest. They bark and bite because they don’t like what they see. They feel threaten and they don’t back down. Instead of flight, they prefer to fight.
We, human, call ourselves the master of the universe because we have a better-developed brain and we know how to make tools and use them. But are we really? We are still at the mercy of Mother Nature when she throws a temper. Yet many animal species can sense the imminence of earthquake and volcano eruption and run away. We invent “Moral” to keep us from doing harm. But are we being hypocritical. If you have multiple sex partners, you are promiscuous; you are a slut, a bigamist. Certain religion will even stone you to death. Yet, lots of animals have multiple mates and biologists think that is good for the species as that increases the gene pool. Incest is a moral taboo. Yet, people routinely in-breed animals to keep pure bloodline for profit. You see sex and morality does not necessarily involve manipulation and/or lustful thought.
Trying to - “concentrate more on morals being involve with "doing good", or "do no harm" to others” - and avoid sex and others runs the danger of only looking at one side of the story. It brings to mind Confucius, the reputedly great moralist. His teaching is all “doing good” or “do no harm” stuff. Its so wholesome that many emperors suppressed all other teaching but his. Confucius basically choked off any other teaching, be it moral or immoral; scientific or superstitious. In reality, the reason Confucius got picked is because he preaches loyalty to your country but more importantly to your king. Morality is just the cover for the kings to hypnotize his subordinates. Do you see the manipulation hidden behind here? It is the ultimate obscenity – mind control.
Did I just say morality does not necessarily involve manipulation two paragraphs ago? You see morality is not a two edged knife (by the way its should be called a sword). It’s your mind! Your mind can make it either way. You don’t need moral to “do good” or “do no harm”. Morality is just a mirage. You want to “do good”, try to be a volunteer. Help out the less fortunate, be it man or beast and don’t expect returns. Believe me. Your soul will be happier.
Mad Doberman.
Good points again, Mad Doberman.
ReplyDeleteI would like to do a discussion in the Ideas Cafe on why sex is generally connected with morality and more commonly with guilt. I was convinced in the last cafe meeting that it may have more to do with man trying to control woman as part of their property (and organized religion trying to control their followers by controlling their desires). There must be more to this but it will have to wait its turn as the list of topics have already been committed for a few months ahead.
As to the "do more good, do less harm" value system being taken advantage off by monarchs and rulers throughout history and into the present, I agree. However, rather than being cynical about this as the only reason, I think the general citizens also benefited from the peace and prosperity that resulted in a stable society that is influenced by a moral code. The question is whether the prosperity dividend coming from the moral code provide enough productivity gains to allow for the excesses of the rulers. If the rulers do not take too much out of the system, an argument can be made that the citizens are better off with the moral code.
A society of pirates and thieves generally do not last as long as that of a society with a moral code. The moral code promote trust which in turn allows cooperation to occur and society to prosper.
So if morality is only in our minds, why do we feel better when volunteering and helping the less fortunate? Are they somehow connected to each other or is Confucius just trying to use our feel good response to helping other people as a basis to build his moral code?
Oliver.