Moral Absolutes

This is for the men primarily but

Focus: Talking to me or around me (or anyone in general, no talking in the bathroom period) while in the bathroom at the office. Especially at the urinal. Shut the fuck up. I hate when I whip it out to take a piss, only to have some guy come in and ask me about clients, weekends or whatever. 1. My penis is out, there should never be a conversation between men when penises are out. 2. Let me have 15 goddamn seconds of silence, please.

 

Okay, I'll be "that guy."

What if someone told you that you had to molest a child, or they would rape 1000 children. If you did it, they would disappear for good. But if you didn't, they would certainly and successfully rape 1000 children. What then?

Also, there are no moral absolutes.

Morality basically just sprang from social contracts and evolutionary biology. Some morality is just instinctual. Like not molesting children or family members (well, for most people). Your biology actually makes you not want to commit these immoral acts. Other things, like not bashing someone over the head with a rock for their land/ women, are more social contract/ manipulation things. You recognize that physical power can often be fickle and that you might have the upper hand at one point but can certainly have a bad position the next. Things would quickly devolve into mobs of attackers and looting wars and gang warfare. So you agree to a contract where "I don't bash you over the head; you don't bash me over the head."

This contract is really put into place by teaching children proper "ethics," indoctrinating them with religion, etc, and then enforced by government. Not a bad system for humanity, really. And I like to indulge in my apish impulses, personally, and I'd have massive cognitive dissonance if I were a nihilist, so I follow the apish impulses of morality. Funny, you think animal instincts would make you more likely to rape and kill. But actually, within your own tribe and society you have impulses preventing you from these things. We really are social, cooperative beings.

The biggest irony, actually, is that this morality contract of our society pretty much depends on recognizing morality as a real and sound concept. So a lot of typical people will not like it, not like it all, if you point out that there are no moral absolutes. Again, I am a really nice guy who always tips well and holds doors open because I just indulge in my random moral impulses and really don't act too philosophical in day to day life.

Hope I didn't tear down the walls of anyone's reality here.

 

I recently had a long, drunken conversation with my friend on the topic of morality. His contention was that you had to be spiritual to be moral. It was a strange point of view to me, as I had never really thought about it in terms of spirituality. Mind you, he did not mean you had to be religious, but more that you had to believe in some sort of spiritual plane to be truly moral. Basically, his argument was the following: if you don't believe in some sort of spiritual world beyond our physical world, how could morality exist? Why would you feel the pull to be moral, to be nice to others, etc.? It really blew my mind since this is someone I generally consider very logical and intelligent, and I found his argument illogical. He refused to accept the idea that people want to be nice to each other because they want people to be nice to them. Granted, that's not always the case (rape, murder, etc.), but it's still my theory on morality.

Focus: Animal abusers should be thrown in a pit with ravenous boars and experience some abuse from animals as punishment for their crimes.

 

Your friend is missing the point.

If an individual is behaving in a certain manner to receive a perceived reward rather than from simple innate kindness it lessens them considerably.

For instance you have 2 children helping an old lady across the road. The first is doing it because he was concerned she might not be able to see all the traffic and wanted her to be safe. The second has been told by his mother if he can rack up 5 successful old lady crossings with no collateral damage he would get a nice crisp $20 when he gets home. Which one is the better kid?

If you are only being an upstanding and moralistic member of the community because you are god fearing and want a place in heaven, you are the kid who wants the $20.

As the guy above rightly pointed out, human morals were fine tuned to optimize the success of the community and therefore society. Which in turn optimises the environment for the successful passing on of genes. Religion hasn’t created the modern moral condition, its teachings are largely the enforcement of the existing ideal.

 

What is the difference between that $20 bill and getting a good feeling from doing "the right thing"? Both are rewards that influence choice. Where do you draw the line and say that something was done purely because it was moral and not due to some selfish motive?

 

Valid point. But you are assuming that kid 1 get’s a good feeling, that wasn’t stated in the example, merely that he was acting out of good conscious. However, having a mechanism that makes him feel good is internal and not necessarily dependent upon external reward. In my opinion that makes it part of that individuals human condition in the same way he wouldn’t put his hand into fire because its burns, it’s innate. If you offered him $10,000 to NOT help the old lady, he probably wouldn’t, you would have then circumvented his natural impulse and he would probably feel guilty about it afterwards. Wether that’s attributable to nature or nurture is a whole other can of worms.

Let’s get something straight, I think the term moral is an abstract notion, if something is good for me and my community/society/nation it’s moral. If it’s bad for one or all, it’s immoral, this is simplistic but it’s pretty close to how I feel. If your argument is that anything that gives pleasure to an organism invalidates the behaviour as a positive moral action I’m unconvinced. I would put it to you that someone who saves a strange child from a child killer would feel pretty damn good about it afterwards. This doesn’t lessen the act.

 

See, here's where I think I have a philosophical break with this line of thinking:

The fact that morality is an evolutionary artifact designed to protect the greater interest makes it no less important or real. Lets take your example of holding the door for somebody, or tipping well -- a person who scoffed at morality might suggest that you're simply signaling to others (and yourself) that you're the sort of generous, kind person who can be trusted in a society from which he might benefit. That view kind of misses the point though -- the fact that you're willing to consider the larger implications of your actions, self-serving though they may be, is the foundation of morality.

I don't believe in an external morality (i.e., a vengeful diety), but that's really neither here nor there, in my opinion.

There are plenty of moral absolutes, by the way. They're just more specific than one would like. For example, "don't kill" isn't a moral absolute, because plenty of cultures eat meat. And execute prisoners. And have wars, and such, without being immoral. On the other hand, "don't beat a nice dog with a sack of nickels because you're upset" is a moral absolute in my opinion, though and admittedly limited one.

 

That wasn't the comparison. The first child did the deed out of concern for the safety of the old lady. I can do a good thing for someone else and get zero reward for it. In fact, I've done the right thing on a number of occasions that has caused me a great deal of financial strife and stress because it was my opinion that it was the morally right thing to do.

But, to answer your question, there's at least a notional difference between a "good feeling" and $20. Both enrich the recipient. However, the mother is required to be deprived of the $20 to give it to the child (whether or not she is happy to part with it, she is still down the money). The good feeling does not involve a loss by anyone else.

 

What if the kid gets the $20, and feels good about what he did. But wait, the mom doesn't worry about the $20, and is happy the child helped someone!?
Either way, the argument of morality is purely subjective, no matter what angle you approach it from.
The "Golden Rule" from pre school is about as good as it gets, treating others how you want to be treated. Here's to hoping no one wants to get raped by the population of the local maximum security prison.

 

Eh, if you go far enough down the rabbit hole, it just might.

Here's a few questions for you to consider:

What constitutes a moral action, exactly? What are the requirements or basic attributes? You'll find it will be very difficult to give a simple answer.

Another question: What is the purpose of acting with morality? Answering this may give you a few insights.

 

Acting in accordance with the principles of right conduct, which requires knowing the difference between right and wrong. Do the right thing, because it's the right thing to do.

Personal growth and character development, which in turn contributes to the betterment of society.

 

"Moral law is an invention of Mankind for the disenfranchisement of the powerful in favor of the weak. A moral view can never be proven right or wrong by any ultimate test.
-- from Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy.

I don't have anything else to add...For now.