Society

Robb

Is society slowly destroying itself from a Moral perspective?

Subtopic: Media, Celb culture slowly destroying the way people are brought up in the world? *This is the topic I am trying to get going on the subject above"

Gary L

The internet will change the nature of human society I think. Free choice of environment and the elimination of geographic restriction on thought. I don't really see society as a controlling factor on me. If I didn't have the internet, things would be very different. What do you think?

Cannibal Ox

I think that you're reifying morality from it's origins within humans. Morality isn't a strict set of objective laws, it is constructed by human beings, and varieties of moral systems have existed, and continue to exist alongside each other.

I don't think that celebrities are external to morality, I think they're an offshoot of the predominant morality that exists within a society/s. They are like classical heroes, or saints in christianity, because they are the images of the morality that societies produce and they represent it directly. So the morals of celebrity's can't destroy a societies moral system because they are a by-product of that moral system.

nyarlothothep

Simplistic response on my part but we're much more civilized than at any other time in history, still a long way to go

af_thefragile

I'ld like to ask if there has been any scientific and technological advancement that has increased the levels of love and happiness among us?

We may be the most technologically and scientifically advanced than we have ever been in history. But more civilised? I might tend to disagree.

Taking this to my thoughts about simplicity. Its the simple things in life that bring us the most pleasure. None of the internet, ipods, cars and television can do it for us.

What is the ideal society?
One that ensures all occupants are equipped with the most advanced of technologies to do the chores while the occupants strive harder and harder to succeed in a dog eat dog world?
or is the ideal society one that ensures all occupants are living in peace and harmony with one another and with nature.

af_thefragile

Gary L wrote: »

The internet will change the nature of human society I think. Free choice of environment and the elimination of geographic restriction on thought. I don't really see society as a controlling factor on me. If I didn't have the internet, things would be very different. What do you think?

I think the nature of the information shared/accessed is more significant than the amount of information exchanged.

There have been times in the past where people travelled from all parts of the known world to centers of education. Scientists, philosophers, astronomers, travelers etc travelled to cities where great amounts of knowledge was exchanged between people. Baghdad during the 10th century was one such city where great libraries of information and knowledge was being compiled by people from all over the known world. Cambridge is still an example of a city of such kind.

Those libraries and places of gathering for people were no different than the internet and chat rooms/forums of today, in essence.

Though one big difference was the knowledge that was being exchanged/discussed was mostly well useful towards human progress.
Whereas the internet now days is riddled with all sorts of useless junk that does nothing but hypnotise and trap a person in a spiraling vortex of predominantly wasting time!

Watching 6hrs of television everyday and listening to Lady Gaga is gonna contribute nothing towards making any sort of progress.

Gary L

Your world is not 'the world'.

Nokem

Robb wrote: »

Is society slowly destroying itself from a Moral perspective?

Subtopic: Media, Celb culture slowly destroying the way people are brought up in the world? *This is the topic I am trying to get going on the subject above"

This is an interesting thought. I would put it to you to look at other cultures and societies outside of the western one to answer this question. Why is it that for example the islamic people suffer less from this moral degradation. Is is that the imposition of the relative strict moral code in the form of their religion has helped stem the decline in a moral society and moral actions.
Another point of note, this view is taken in the bias that the western society HAS declined from a moral perspective. Are we not simply following our individual moral choices? and that these moral choices are filtered though societal morals to give an abject declining view of modern society. It may be that the spread of moral freedom eminating from the progression of political and societal freedoms has led to a greater scope for individual choice on that which is morally right. Be this the case there is an argeument for the place of societal filters on our individual moral choices.

P.S new to boards:D so apologies if i am misplaced in my arguement:(

philologos

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I think that you're reifying morality from it's origins within humans. Morality isn't a strict set of objective laws, it is constructed by human beings, and varieties of moral systems have existed, and continue to exist alongside each other.

Isn't it? - Morality seems to be very much a set of principles based on the conscience. Depending on how much we are willing to let our conscience into our affairs, the more morally aware we will be.

Numerous aspects of Western society, and normal discourse involve a objective set of moral values to begin with from small personal disputes, to issues of human rights.

raah!

I guess it could be rephrased as "a set of strict objective laws - constructed by humans". You could even go as far as to say that the restrictions placed on people by biology are in some way universal and objective, but that is not really morality.

philologos

Why must they be constructed by humans? Isn't it also possible that through the natural faculty of the conscience that we can determine what is right from wrong?

Universal and constructed contradict eachother. If morality is constructed, it is relative and at our whim. If it is universal, there are key aspects of right and wrong that have existed before we came to be, and exist to the present, and will exist into the future even if humans fail to act by them.

If we invent morality, we can change it to suit ourselves. If it is universal, we are bound by it.

raah!

Well that's kinda what I meant by "biological restrictions", we didn't decide that killing people should make us feel bad. But I was referring more to empathy than conscience. I have a distinction that conscience is feeling bad because you recognise what you have done is wrong, through thinking, and empathy being more to do with emotions. But perhaps the two are the same.

I agree that viewing moral systems as construced means one is less likely to have less respect for them. But one can choose a moral system and then stick to it. Treating this definition of right and wrong as universal.

And I think that for any moral system to have any meaning it must be treated as universal. You cannot define "good" unless something somewhere is "bad". Anyway, I don't disagree.

philologos

Biology doesn't restrict us in terms of ethics though. Most theories surrounding biology as a basis of ethical behaviour claim that the reason we do it is to ensure our continued survival.

However, this doesn't explain why people give up their lives for a higher cause. Or why people do things that aren't in their own interest, but things that sacrifice our interests for those of others out of a desire to do what is right.

All we can pull from a biological basis for ethical behaviour is that we only do what is right because we are inherently selfish. However, being selfish in itself, is something which is considered unethical / immoral. It doesn't give a full explanation of why we do what is right in the first place.

So I'd agree with you in saying that biology isn't a true basis for morality. Now we have a question to ask ourselves, "What is?".

Although I'd need to ask, even if we treat constructed moral systems as universal, the fact is that they actually aren't. Something cannot be constructed and universal in actuality.

raah!

Naturally the only way to go with morality is to have some dogma and stick to it. But then the question of "why that dogma" is the big one. For religious people it is obvious. They love/respect/believe the giver of the laws.

I think that this sort of religious morality is also possible if a person loves their government and believe that they are great. I think this is more difficult since the government is just a group of people. There is also however religious morality based on fear, and the government is certainly able to fill that role. Going to jail for breaking the law is an obvious example.

With regard to constructed systems not actually being universal, it would be hard to say that any moral system is "actually" universal. Empathy is universal, but it is not morality. If a moral system were universal, rather than just universally applied, then there would never be any disagrement about any moral issues ever.

There are also interesting cases of varying universal morality. An example is I once met a fellow who said "the law of whatever country I am in is correct", for me this would be a hard thing to actually believe in.

philologos

raah! wrote: »

Naturally the only way to go with morality is to have some dogma and stick to it. But then the question of "why that dogma" is the big one. For religious people it is obvious. They love/respect/believe the giver of the laws.

Not quite. It's that there has to be a consident measure for what is right or wrong. It can't be dependant on peoples thought or opinion, or else it could be seriously abused. Therefore it seems reasonable, that rights, and morals exist independently of human beings. Of course there is the problem when people mix their own thoughts and opinions into something that is beyond themselves, corrupting it. Using it to hide their own subjective conclusions into.

raah! wrote: »

There is also however religious morality based on fear, and the government is certainly able to fill that role. Going to jail for breaking the law is an obvious example.

I'd agree with you, but it is evident in most cases that such morality isn't based on fear.

raah! wrote: »

With regard to constructed systems not actually being universal, it would be hard to say that any moral system is "actually" universal. Empathy is universal, but it is not morality. If a moral system were universal, rather than just universally applied, then there would never be any disagrement about any moral issues ever.

I'm not so sure, coming from the opinion that morality must be universal, rather than pseudo-universal. I believe we are all innately capable of acting morally, but we often ignore our consciences, and as such become less capable of acting morally.

raah! wrote: »

There are also interesting cases of varying universal morality. An example is I once met a fellow who said "the law of whatever country I am in is correct", for me this would be a hard thing to actually believe in.

That isn't really universalism. That's relativism. Relativism assumes that multiple contradictory conclusions can all be correct.

I don't think I'd be wrong in saying that many cultures, get things wrong, and some are inferior to others. Overall every culture and society has it wrong to a certain degree though. Precisely because every human has it wrong to a certain degree, as we all do what is wrong from time to time.

raah!

Jakkass wrote: »

Not quite. It's that there has to be a consident measure for what is right or wrong. It can't be dependant on peoples thought or opinion, or else it could be seriously abused. Therefore it seems reasonable, that rights, and morals exist independently of human beings. Of course there is the problem when people mix their own thoughts and opinions into something that is beyond themselves, corrupting it. Using it to hide their own subjective conclusions into.

Well the selected dogma would not be dependent on peoples thoughts, and would also be some sort of measure of right and wrong, as it would be a moral dogma.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd agree with you, but it is evident in most cases that such morality isn't based on fear.

Well I would say that in the case of the law, many people's acceptance of these rules have a basis in fear. And with regard to relgion, I don't know if there are many, but there is certainly an idea of hell in some religions

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not so sure, coming from the opinion that morality must be universal, rather than pseudo-universal. I believe we are all innately capable of acting morally, but we often ignore our consciences, and as such become less capable of acting morally.

Do you think that people are ignoring their conscience when they utter things considered blasphemous by the catholic church (for instance)? I think that they genuinely do not see it as wrong. Only based on their opinions.

I think also that it requires knowledge of a certain moral doctrine to follow it.

Jakkass wrote: »

That isn't really universalism. That's relativism. Relativism assumes that multiple contradictory conclusions can all be correct.

Well yes it's not pure universalism, but there is a hint of it there. A similar type would be if the ten commandments were changed regularly, they would still be universal, but changing. In a thread similar to this a person mentioned some tribe where they got new laws from their god regularly. This would be a moral system which is still dogmatic and universal. So similarly, this law based thing would be universal in the sense that "what the government says is right" is completely universal. But I see what you mean. Perhaps it would be better to call it something else. But you could say it is a form of a relativistic moral system free from the earlier pitfalls you mentioned.

philologos

raah! wrote: »

Well the selected dogma would not be dependent on peoples thoughts, and would also be some sort of measure of right and wrong, as it would be a moral dogma.

Selection itself, can be considered to be moral or immoral. It can only be pseudo-universalism. Rather what I am thinking of, is that there are standards of good and evil, that we all know implicitly through our conscience. We can suppress this conscience or choose to embrace it.

raah! wrote: »

Well I would say that in the case of the law, many cases have a basis in fear. And with regard to relgion, I don't know if there are many, but there is certainly an idea of hell in some religions

Are you telling me that you only abide by the laws, and live morally because of some punishment? That's not morality at all. Irrespective of what consequences will happen to you, there are things which are good and things which are evil. Sometimes you will be put in jail for causes which are fundamentally good. You will be ridiculed for doing what is right and just.

raah! wrote: »

Do you think that people are ignoring their conscience when they utter things considered blasphemous by the catholic church (for instance). I think that they genuinely do not see it as wrong. Only based on their opinions.

I'm not a Roman Catholic. As for blasphemy, yes I believe it immoral to be blasphemous, but I don't think morality and manners always correspond with illegal.

It's fundamentally rude, to utter blasphemy before another, but as someone who regards free speech highly, I wouldn't wish to criminalise anyone for uttering such blasphemy.

raah! wrote: »

I think also that it requires knowledge of a certain moral doctrine to follow it.

What is moral doctrine? Don't many people behave ethically irrespective of codes of behaviour?

My position is that people of all religions, and none can do what is moral. However, the reason they do what is moral and just is because of the conscience that God has given them to determine what is good from what is evil.

raah! wrote: »

Well yes it's not pure universalism, but there is a hint of it there. A similar type would be if the ten commandments were changed regularly, they would still be universal, but changing. In a thread similar to this a person mentioned some tribe where they got new laws from their god regularly. This would be a moral system which is still dogmatic and universal. So similarly, this law based thing would be universal in the sense that "what the government says is right" is completely universal. But I see what you mean. Perhaps it would be better to call it something else. But you could say it is a form of a relativistic moral system free from the earlier pitfalls you mentioned.

It's not universal at all. If laws contradict, and if one thinks that the State makes the laws. Effectively they are saying that moral behaviour is dependant upon human beings.

Universal means for everyone, not just in certain countries or regions. This isn't Judeo-Christian centric either. In Greek philosophy Socrates featured in Plato's dialogues rejects the relative understanding of Protagoras when he says that "Man is the measure of all things" but regards the Form of the Good, the means by which we can determine what is good from what is evil.

raah!

Jakkass wrote: »

Selection itself, can be considered to be moral or immoral. It can only be pseudo-universalism. Rather what I am thinking of, is that there are standards of good and evil, that we all know implicitly through our conscience. We can suppress this conscience or choose to embrace it.

Well I just plain disagree with that. As I said, if there were some universal agreement of consciences then there would be universal agreement of ... everythign really. The existence of so many "wrong people" I think speaks against this.

Jakkass wrote: »

Are you telling me that you only abide by the laws, and live morally because of some punishment? That's not morality at all. Irrespective of what consequences will happen to you, there are things which are good and things which are evil. Sometimes you will be put in jail for causes which are fundamentally good. You will be ridiculed for doing what is right and just.

I was speaking of reasons to follow a certain moral code, and I wasn't speaking about myself. And I think your belief in this universal conscience is causing confusion between us here again.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not a Roman Catholic. As for blasphemy, yes I believe it immoral to be blasphemous, but I don't think morality and manners always correspond with illegal.

I was only using this as an argument against your conception of a universal conscience.

Jakkass wrote: »

What is moral doctrine? Don't many people behave ethically irrespective of codes of behaviour?

I think that ethical behaviour consists in intentions. Killing someone by accident is not evil. And giving money to charity by accident, while it might have a "good" outcome, is not good.

the reason they do what is moral and just is because of the conscience that God has given them to determine what is good from what is evil.

I would argue that they chose which conscience god gave them by chosing to believe what is written in the bible. Some people have never read the bible, and If they didn't know what a church was would not feel bad if they did a poo in one. Your argument suggests they would, but I don't think this is consistent with reality.

It's not universal at all. If laws contradict, and if one thinks that the State makes the laws. Effectively they are saying that moral behaviour is dependant upon human beings.

It is universal, in the statement "governments are correct". So while governments change, the statement is universal. It is the same as if a god were changing its opinion for different countries.

Universal means for everyone, not just in certain countries or regions. This isn't Judeo-Christian centric either. In Greek philosophy Socrates featured in Plato's dialogues rejects the relative understanding of Protagoras when he says that "Man is the measure of all things" but regards the Form of the Good, the means by which we can determine what is good from what is evil.

Socrates also said (or maybe it was just plato, that's all very confusing) that we can only know the form of the good through philosophical meditation, and that people only did bad because they didn't know what bad was. This contradicts your statement that everyone has a conscience which always tells them what is right or wrong. Unless you think that we have to "discover" this conscience, in which case perhaps a new word is needed for conscience.

Anyway, I will certainly admit that your conception of universal morality is far more universal than mine. But I think the idea of one conscience for all people is just plain wrong.

raah!

My view is that morality is not universally agreed upon, nor do I believe in a conscience which is universal. We could perhaps say there is a universal empathy, but empathy is directed towards successful propogation of genes, and does not relate to things such as blasphemy where as conscience would, if you saw blaspemy as wrong.

I think that morals are universal in the sense that, in order to have a definition of "good" you must apply it everywhere. Other peoples morals are not also correct, but wrong. That is not relativism, it is simply acknowledging the eixstence of other moral systems. I do not believe that they must necessarily know about what good is.

philologos

Universal != universally agreed upon.

People can choose to reject the universal standard of morality, it isn't deterministic like the laws of physics. If everyone in the world rejected it, it would still exist, and it would still demand better from us as human beings.

raah!

But if people chose to reject it wouldn't it then not be universally agreed upon?

Well here's a definition of the word anyway. So my use of it isn't really incorrect.

1. Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world; worldwide: "This discovery of literature has as yet only partially penetrated the universal consciousness" (Ellen Key).
2. Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration: the universal skepticism of philosophers. See Synonyms at general.
3. Applicable or common to all purposes, conditions, or situations: a universal remedy.
4. Of or relating to the universe or cosmos; cosmic.
5. Knowledgeable about or constituting all or many subjects; comprehensively broad.
6. Adapted or adjustable to many sizes or mechanical uses.
7. Logic Encompassing all of the members of a class or group. Used of a proposition.

And a further clarification, I think is necessary. When I talk about "selection" I did so only because for many people it is difficult to just "know" what is ultimately good or ultimately bad. I would even go so far as to say that it is impossible to know this. So you must "select" ones which you think are the best approximation. Just as many people have selected to become part of a religion and accept their laws.

Now if you never select a set, but instead rely soley on yourself to decide whatever is right or wrong you will have a very hard time. For example, if you are only talking about things like conscience and empathy, then it would be ok to do bad things to someone you don't like, or someone so far removed that you cannot see the negative effects the things have on them. And an idea of right or wrong based on either of these is fairly similar to saying "I won't do things that make me feel bad".

philologos

That's what I said in my post. Universal doesn't necessarily mean universally agreed upon. It merely means that such a standard of behaviour exists, and is the chief means of determining right from wrong even if most people reject it, it still in reality informs how they deal with moral situations they land themselves into.

All of your 7 say nothing about agreement.

raah!

Moral
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

Combine any of these with, say number 3 there. Nowhere is it mentioned that everyone must have the same conception of right or good.

Our disagreement is that you think that everyone actually believes in the same definition of good and bad.

Why my definition is still universal is that it "relates or extends to the whole world". So whatever definition of good or bad a person arrives at, for them it extends to the whole world. Unlike a relativist, who would say "it is bad for me to do this, but not for someone somewhere else"

If we go back to plato, he has a universal definition of Good. But not everyone knows it. Their idea of "being in accord with right or good conduct" is different. Therefore, they have a different morals. So Plato if plato's idea of morality can be considered to be universal, then so can mine. The difference between us is that while he believes that he knows what right and wrong are, I have no way of telling. There are many religions available and many systems of belief, not everyone knows which one is correct.

it still in reality informs how they deal with moral situations they land themselves into.

I think that this is our only point of disagrement really

Also, my point all along was that while I believe good and bad are universal, I do not believe they are agreed upon, so all 7 saying nothing about universal is why I posted the word there.

philologos

Indeed, nowhere does it say that everyone must have the same conception. However, in reality, there is one common system of morality between them, even if they disagree with this notion.

In reality, even in personal arguments people invoke universal morality. Why should you rebuke someone else? What's the point if their view is equally valid to yours. The reason people rebuke one another is because there is a universal standard between them that has been violated.

Again, in conflict we regard things as unacceptable, not only for then, but for all time into the future as well.

Human rights as I've previously mentioned is a key example. Why are human rights deemed to be universal if they were merely matters of peoples opinions? If this were true, human rights are up to the ruling elite.

The way we act is evidence that we invoke universal norms of morality on a daily basis.

By the by, it would be a strawman of Plato to suggest that he intended the Form of the Good to be just for him. The whole point of the forms was that they were to be binding on all, and they were to be the real underlying truths to the universe. The difference is that others didn't have the same understanding as those who were philosophical minded.

This doesn't mean that the truth of the Forms according to Plato wasn't true in reality, but rather that people just didn't know what reality was.

The Forms for Plato, weren't confined to the mind, or to thought, they were true in reality. Likewise morality isn't confined to the mind or opinions, it is true in reality, and it is independent from us.

raah!

Jakkass wrote: »

In reality, even in personal arguments people invoke universal morality. Why should you rebuke someone else? What's the point if their view is equally valid to yours. The reason people rebuke one another is because there is a universal standard between them that has been violated.

People rebuke people because they assume they have the same definitions of right and wrong as they do. If we went over to a tribe of cannibals we would have to rebuke them almost constantly

Again, in conflict we regard things as unacceptable, not only for then, but for all time into the future as well.

Conflicts arise because of differing conceptions of right or wrong. People do not think "oh this is wrong, but I'll do it anyway"

Human rights as I've previously mentioned is a key example. Why are human rights deemed to be universal if they were merely matters of peoples opinions? If this were true, human rights are up to the ruling elite.

Human rights are certainly human constructs, in their legal form anyway, and this would be an example of one group of people forcing their moral system on another

The way we act is evidence that we invoke universal norms of morality on a daily basis.

As I said, universal application is necessary. This is not evidence for universal conception.

By the by, it would be a strawman of Plato to suggest that he intended the Form of the Good to be just for him. The whole point of the forms was that they were to be binding on all, and they were to be the real underlying truths to the universe. The difference is that others didn't have the same understanding as those who were philosophical minded.

I never suggested that. I said that plato did not believe that universals were equally understood. He did not believe in universal conception of the forms. That is why there is a big long part about going back into the cave to tell everyone about them. People do not automatically know about them.

This doesn't mean that the truth of the Forms according to Plato wasn't true in reality, but rather that people just didn't know what reality was.

This is an arugment against your universal conscience. A universal Good, is not universal knowledge of the Good. To know something is contradictory to the Good you have to know the Good. Some people do not, and therefore there is not a universal conscience.

To say there is is to say that regularly in our lives, we do things which are bad but we do not know are bad, and then feel that we have done wrong. It would be very easy to find examples... from any moral system which people do on a regular basis, and then do not feel bad about them.

Now the definition for morality I have is most close to number 2 there "a system of ideas of right and wrong". To say that everyone has the same system is just wrong. Unless people just lie to themselves about what they think. For example, I know I do not have the same definitions of right and wrong as a person who takes theirs from the bible. It is still possible however, that this universal conscience makes me feel bad when I act agasint this values I don't have. I don't think that it does.

The Volt

I don't think issues of morality come into it. Society has never really had the ability to generate a large amount of freedom. Look at how people on the outside have to conform in order to take part in society for example.