Morality

Lex_Diamonds

I was thinking about this today, do you think that people only have moral values because they fear the consequences of immoral behaviour?

Do we not steal only because we fear we would be caught?

What do you all think?

Chaos-Engine

NO I don't believe so...

Morality is more concerned with things such as Karma or "Do on to others as you would have done on to you"(in christian speck)...

Logic and Probability have more to do with your idea I believe. For in some instances you can do something which is moraly wrong but the liklyhood of being "found out" is negligable.

Ethics = Whats right and wrong(philosophical based)
Morality = Socities ethics(religious based)


poke holes where you please.

Gordon

Do you mean that if we are in a utopia where theft does not have repercussions - would we not mind about stealing? If that situation were to arise then theft I think would not exist as an act so therefore it couldn't be classified.

People mainly steal because they think that they won't get caught to be honest.

It's a very good pont though Lex. In a world of no consequence though I feel that the word "immoral" would not exist (as implied before), so therefore it is impossible to make that hypothesies.

It's like asking - which came first - the chicken or the egg...
maybe

[edit]Great topic for the forum though too )

Xterminator

I'd say people steal because they covet.

Now fear of being caught may deter such behaviour, but lack of such fear does not motivate it.

X

DadaKopf

Originally posted by Lex_Diamonds
I was thinking about this today, do you think that people only have moral values because they fear the consequences of immoral behaviour?

Do we not steal only because we fear we would be caught?

If we didn't have moral values, there'd be no such thing as immoral behaviour. We'd just have behaviour - and that's exactly what we have.

There generally seems to be two ways of looking as morals/ethics (same difference):

1) any act or intention is either right or wrong in itself, regardless of consequences

2) any act is right or wrong, not in itself, but due to the consequences.

Personally, I think that morals exist generally so people can collectively exercise some control over the infinite diversity of human society. People like to draw boundaries so there won't be chaos - otherwise people feel that things wouldn't really mean anything and people couldn't trust anyone.

For example: is the Hippocratic oath intrinsically 'good' or does it exist because, otherwise, people wouldn't trust handing their bodies over to the medics? I think it's purely a pragmatic concern, but nonetheless 'moral'. We don't want to go in and come out with some limbs removed or being 'helped to die' because some other person needed the body.

The law works the same way. We need rules but I don't believe those rules are anything other than man made. I'm not religious.

origen

few people who are not in the grips of an ideology would concede that moral laws are universals, that is, that these laws are INTRINSICALLY right or wrong because it leads to all sorts of problems, such as that of history - what was right 800 years ago is not right today - if the laws were intrinsically good or bad, such discrepancies would be impossible.
i would modify what dadakopf said, and say that moral laws are intrinsically good or bad at any give time. that is to say, i recognize the fact that different cultures have different truths. in any given culture - or area of knowledge for that matter, there are assumed TRUTHS. these might not be truths but they are treated as such because we cannot escape our being situated in a particular place at a particular time - we are inescapably interwoven into the background that sets the stage for our existence.

seamus

At the end of the day, good and bad are only concepts. One persons idea of something almighty and holy may be someone else's idea of something wholly evil. Just look at WWII. Even for ourselves, while we must(should) obey a set of guidelines, put down by the state, which define the state's interpretation of right and wrong, good and evil, we also have our own sense of what is right and wrong.
For example, I wouldn't steal someone's car, because I don't think it's right, meaning, I would feel really guitly about it, because that poor bastard would have worked hard to buy his car, and would have then to pay more to replace it again. The fact that the state would jail me doesn't come into play.
As someone said, people don't steal because of a lack of fear of being caught, they do it because they don't see it as wrong, IMO. Scumbags that steal cars do it for the laugh. They don't feel remorse about the stealing of the car, and they feel hard done by when they're caught or charged by the state for doing it. Why do you think they run? They are afraid of being caught.

My 2c

darthmise

The only thing that keeps people in line is the fear of what the reprecussions might be. We are not born with a sense of what is right or wrong, it is dictated to us from day one.

I'd like to think that people had the ability to keep ourselves in check and resist temptation-without-consequence, but we are by our very nature a parasitic creature who's only motivation on the most basic level is to survive.

Now if the reprecussions adversely affect your ability to survive, then you won't take that chance.
But i think that most people, when they're backs are to the wall, will do whatever it takes to survive, (self defense mechanism)

Don't get me wrong, people do make morally 'good' choices every day, but it's only because they are fortunate enough to be in a position to do so. E.g.; "Will i donate money to charity?"

Its all about what you need.
Its all about how bad you need it.
Its all about what you can get away with.

Victor

Originally posted by Xterminator
Now fear of being caught may deter such behaviour, but lack of such fear does not motivate it.

While lack of fear is not a motivation for, say stealing, there are people who get a buzz out of the domination thing of being able to take without fear (others get the buzz out of the fear of being caught).

seamus

In general, the type of crime it is depends on whether people would do it.

For example, driving down the motorway on a clear, dry day, when there's no-one else on it, and you knew you could maintain 100mph without getting caught, would you do it? Most people would, especially if they knew for certain they wouldn't be caught. The only thing stopping most people in traffic situations is fear of getting caught (or the common sense to not kill yourself or someone else through stupidity).

Apply the same to murder. If you could kill someone and know for certain you would get away with it, would you do it? I know I wouldn't.

I think because everyone differs in their sense of right and wrong, it's not right, that is, impossible to make generalisations.

Just MHO

Victor

Originally posted by seamus
The only thing stopping most people in traffic situations is fear of getting caught

Unfortunately, not enough people have this fear. And there is also the factor of the "punishment" not being big enough of a deterrent (in Finland fines are proportionate to income - the boss of Nokia has been stung at least twice for €100,000 a time).

DadaKopf

Originally posted by seamus
In general, the type of crime it is depends on whether people would do it.

For example, driving down the motorway on a clear, dry day, when there's no-one else on it, and you knew you could maintain 100mph without getting caught, would you do it? Most people would, especially if they knew for certain they wouldn't be caught. The only thing stopping most people in traffic situations is fear of getting caught (or the common sense to not kill yourself or someone else through stupidity).

Apply the same to murder. If you could kill someone and know for certain you would get away with it, would you do it? I know I wouldn't.

I think because everyone differs in their sense of right and wrong, it's not right, that is, impossible to make generalisations.

Just MHO

Well, does that view not ignore the fact that whatever culture you live in, certain acts or intentions carry certain values of right or wrong? I mean, even if you could get away with killing someone, would you really do it? I really dont think that the human race is so amoral that they would actually kill someone just because they wouldn't get caught - most people find that absolutely repugnant. The holocaust only occurred because 1) it was concealed from the German public and 2) a vast system of propaganda conditioned people into condoning certain opinions of 'undesirables'. In the same way most of us don't associate eating meat with mass slaughter because it's all mechanically sealed in plastic boxes and conceptually sterilised of any 'crime', the same thing could be said of the holocaust.

But when the truth came out, the Germans were horrified by the biggest crime of the last millennium.

Many Nazis killed because they either could or 'had to' because it wasn't them doing it, it was the uniform, superiors' orders or the Fuhrer's desires. But when it came down to it, many ex-Nazi officers killed themselves as much out of extreme guilt and grief as fear of arrest and execution.

CodeMonkey

Originally posted by DadaKopf

Well, does that view not ignore the fact that whatever culture you live in, certain acts or intentions carry certain values of right or wrong? I mean, even if you could get away with killing someone, would you really do it? I really dont think that the human race is so amoral that they would actually kill someone just because they wouldn't get caught - most people find that absolutely repugnant.

Agreed. You also have to consider what someone has to gain as well when trying to reason out why someone would do what society consider to be bad things. And even withint he same culture, different people are motivated by different things. I'd imagine a billionaire would not consider killing someone for 1 million euros but offer the same deal to a bum and see what happens... and then not all bums or billionaires are the same.

In a utopian society where material possession is meaningless, greed might not be the biggest motivation for commiting crimes like today but there will be other factors.

shotamoose

Originally posted by DadaKopf

Well, does that view not ignore the fact that whatever culture you live in, certain acts or intentions carry certain values of right or wrong? I mean, even if you could get away with killing someone, would you really do it? I really dont think that the human race is so amoral that they would actually kill someone just because they wouldn't get caught - most people find that absolutely repugnant. The holocaust only occurred because 1) it was concealed from the German public and 2) a vast system of propaganda conditioned people into condoning certain opinions of 'undesirables'.

Well that's a matter of considerable controversy. Daniel Goldhagen, in his book "Hitler's Willing Executioners", argues that many, many ordinary Germans took part in the persecution and killing of Jews. He says this was the result of an 'exterminist' (I might have the wrong word there) attitude towards Jews which viewed them as sub-human and thus not subject to the usual moral laws. Most important, he argues that most Germans had a pretty good idea that Jews were being killed in large numbers.

As I say it's controversial, but I would say that the categories we're dealing with here - "killing a human being " - are themselves changeable and subject to ideology. If your idea of what constitutes a human changes, the boundary between 'murder' and 'extermination' shifts.

Another relevant aspect of the Holocaust was that it was bureacratically organised genocide. Thousands of clerks and administrators were involved in it, and while you could not argue that each was individually responsible for the genocide, each of them did, even by moving a set of figures from one column to another, participate in the killing of people. I think that for many people doing this kind of work, it simply didn't seem real - the end result was so far away in space and sometimes in time that it didn't register on their moral radar. Today, our actions arguably have a lot more potential effect on people far away, which should bring with it a sense of responsibility but usually doesn't. Famine or war in another country often doesn't bother us much, even if our governments - and, it follows, their electorates - are partly responsible.

seamus

Sorry Dada, my post was a bit misleading.....that was the point that I was making - that most people won't commit murder even if they'll get away with, yet most will commit traffic violations, even if they won't get away with it.

That said, there could be some messed up individual, who feels the opposite - ie, won't commit traffic violation, but will kill without fear.

I just think there are too many permutations of culture, upbringing, religion, etc to define one single formula of morality by which people live.

CodeMonkey

Originally posted by seamus
Sorry Dada, my post was a bit misleading.....that was the point that I was making - that most people won't commit murder even if they'll get away with, yet most will commit traffic violations, even if they won't get away with it.

That just leads back to my point about motives. Most people who commit traffic violations has someone to gain like saving some time or experiencing the thrill of driving really fast etc. All can be done with little or no risk of being caught. People don't go around killing each other unless they have a reason to or is a serial killer. And even serial killers have motivations like sexual gratifications etc.

DadaKopf

Originally posted by shotamoose


Well that's a matter of considerable controversy. Daniel Goldhagen, in his book "Hitler's Willing Executioners", argues that many, many ordinary Germans took part in the persecution and killing of Jews. He says this was the result of an 'exterminist' (I might have the wrong word there) attitude towards Jews which viewed them as sub-human and thus not subject to the usual moral laws. Most important, he argues that most Germans had a pretty good idea that Jews were being killed in large numbers.

As I say it's controversial, but I would say that the categories we're dealing with here - "killing a human being " - are themselves changeable and subject to ideology. If your idea of what constitutes a human changes, the boundary between 'murder' and 'extermination' shifts.

Another relevant aspect of the Holocaust was that it was bureacratically organised genocide. Thousands of clerks and administrators were involved in it, and while you could not argue that each was individually responsible for the genocide, each of them did, even by moving a set of figures from one column to another, participate in the killing of people. I think that for many people doing this kind of work, it simply didn't seem real - the end result was so far away in space and sometimes in time that it didn't register on their moral radar. Today, our actions arguably have a lot more potential effect on people far away, which should bring with it a sense of responsibility but usually doesn't. Famine or war in another country often doesn't bother us much, even if our governments - and, it follows, their electorates - are partly responsible.

I know I didn't express myself properly in that post but that's what I was hinting at. The Holocaust was very much genocide by bureaucracy, but it was also a radical (at least) suspension of moral norms or (at worst) a conversion. I opt for the suspension argument.

The 'exterminist' (or whatever) attitude can generlly be put down to propaganda. Though anti-semitic views were latent in German culture already, propaganda was instrumental in bringing them to the fore and redefining The Jew as vermin only worthy of extermination. Culture and science united to class Jews as sub-human and, as a result, beyond moral consideration.

But what I was also hinting at was murder by bureaucracy. As I've mentioned a million times before, that book *The Social Construction of Reality* (Berger and Luckmann) nicely illustrates how roles and organisations remove people's feelings of responsibility, detaching them*selves* from their actions. When any one clerk can only do very little, because his sphere of responsibility is so small, somebody else picks up where he left off and so on, and so on to the point where it's not any one person that does anything, it's the whole system (but we can always end up blaming Hitler). That person acts in a role and that role isn't really *him*, it's his role that is responsible for his behaviour - he's just following orders. His true self is elsewhere. This is why the Nazi regime was so dependent on uniforms and symbols and disorganised bureaucracy - lots of paper but little organisation. Connected with this also, as you say, is the distancing in space and time.

In that case, you have to ask: did the German population really condone the holocaust or was it simply concealed from them by labrynthine bureaucracy on one hand and cheap propagandist manipulation on the other? It's possible to say that while propaganda (cultural and scientific) diminished the status of the Jew to sub-human and that that was translated into total segregation and extreme maltreatment, can anyone say that that same population supported the gas chamber and the oven? Clearly many did, but how deep did it really go?

I think it might be possible to say that the reason uniforms, symbols, science and especially bureaucracy was used to excess in Nazi Germany was because the regime's actions were so despicible even to themselves that distancing factors were required. The Holocaust was still deeply repugnant and had to be concealed.

To me, this points towards a historically embedded morality in German society that was stronger than any weapon the Nazis could come up with. Yes, morals are always changing, norms are being redefined and can be manipulated but I don't think they're so plastic that they can be changed in a decade, not even in such extreme times as Nazi Germany.

shotamoose

That's an interesting argument about 'distancing factors', but I'd say that the extensive bureacracy was required in Germany because of the unprecedentedly large scale of the killing more than a requirement to bypass an inbuilt morality.

During the 1990's, we've seen in Rwanda and Yugoslavia that people from the same community can turn on each other violently in a very short space of time. Both cases were marked by age-old hatreds that were assumed to be more or less under control but which burst through fairly easily when provoked.

DadaKopf

The strange thing about the Jews (throughout Europe at least) was that, in spite of various kinds of segregations, they actually fulfilled an important role in society, and these roles were embraced by the Jews as much as they were forced into such positions. As intermediaries, they were social outsiders who could be trusted to take care of finances and avoid corruption. I'm not condoning any of that, just saying that there were deeply ingrained historical roles already extant in European culture man of which could be classified as symbiotic in the mid nineteenth century.
I hope you're not saying that the administrative bureaucracy arose because of a desire to kill. That's simply not true. Its emergence has a lot more to do with industrial rationality and, perhaps, a German love for order-maintenence and efficiency. When it came down to the Nazis' offensive political ideology, it was the desires of a few psychopaths who knew exactly how to morally distance murder via extensive bureaucracy and objectivating factors like uniforms and science that was required for the operation's legitimacy. Legitimacy is very often a moral concept.

If there ever was a space made to allow the German public, and officials, to connect the bureaucratic system with (at least) the more despicible expressions of Nazi ideology, the regime would have quickly fallen out of favour. But their strategy payed off - they took up every aspect of public and private life just so that connection could not be made. So long as this distancing policy remains, morals can be suspended. (And even under capitalism, the same moral suspension, even moral vertigo is continuing.)

shotamoose

Originally posted by DadaKopf
I hope you're not saying that the administrative bureaucracy arose because of a desire to kill.

No no, just that in this particular case they had to kill a lot of people, so many that it required a lot of organisation. They didn't invent bureaucracy.

There's a separate argument about how complex bureaucracy developed in europe to cope with the need for larger and more complex armies, the taxation needed to fund them and the administrative capacity needed to handle that. So historically they are connected, but that happened long before WWII.

DadaKopf

Yep.