Re: What is morality?
Asking "what is morality" leads to perhaps a worthy discussion, but an open-ended one.
It is very similar to asking "what is God?" because ultimately, everyone has their own ideas and no "proof" in the scientific sense. But does that mean the discussion will produce nothing? Not at all. Philosophers have struggled with these questions throughout history, as well as theologians. There are many thought experiments to be had.
1. If we are talking about religious morality, then it is whatever the religion teaches. The trouble here is that some religions for example could teach that capital punishment is immoral, and others could teach that capital punishment is moral. So this ultimately leads to one opinion or culture disagreeing with another and making no progress because they are all subjective opinions.
2. If we are talking about universal morality, we have to assume that it is possible for such a thing to exist, and we must subscribe to the idea that something is right no matter what people's opinions on the matter are, and something is wrong no matter what people's opinions on the matter are, and the source of that rightness and wrongness is something universal and observable. I am not sure that such a discussion would be any less plagued with personal opinion, or if it would lead anywhere productive.
3. If there is a universal morality, how would you determine what it is? And we are obviously discussing a concept, not an energy field or a force or something along those lines. It is not something you can taste or touch... so it is difficult to prove. By what basis do you prove something is moral or immoral?
4. Can we assume that, for example, if murder is wrong for one culture, it is wrong for all cultures? Can we agree that culture is simply a word for a collection of people who share common beliefs or values? Can we also agree that something being popular does not mean something is correct? What makes something correct, if not popular opinion, or the opinion of those who wield force?
5. If we do not agree that murder is either correct or incorrect for all cultures, then we must accept there is no such thing as morality, only popular opinion.
6. What is immoral? Does it always have to deal with an injustice? What is an injustice? Does it always have to deal with sin? What is sin? By what basis do you define injustice or sin?
7. To make progress, we must attempt to theorize about what is right and wrong, and whether or not it is appropriate to call it moral or immoral. Is it right to spend 18 hours a day playing video games? What if that is what you do as a profession? What if you're a video game tester? Ah, but what if all that inactivity makes you fat, and all that button pushing and typing gives you carpal tunnel syndrome? Can we not now say that our behavior was unhealthy and excessive, and ultimately self-destructive, and therefore wrong? But is that immorality, or is that simply unhealthy excess? Is there an injustice here, or is it simply a case of actions having consequences, and therefore no punishment or law being necessary to curtail such behavior?
8. If we do an unhealthy behavior, is it necessarily wrong? If it is wrong, is it necessarily immoral? If it is immoral, should it necessarily be illegal? If it is illegal, how should we enforce such laws and what punitive actions should be taken if the law is broken?
9. Is there a difference between unhealthy personal choices which affect only one's own life, and more malignant, destructive choices which affect the lives of others, and intrude upon other's lives? Should we intervene when someone's freedom treads upon someone else's freedom, and under what circumstances? How do we determine what circumstances? What authority do we have, as imperfect human beings, to exert governance over other people's lives? What gives us that authority, if we have it?
10. If choices end up destroying lives, are they necessarily immoral? What if they are accidental? What if the effects of those choices could not be foreseen? What if we commit an action with an intent to harm, is it always immoral? What if we end up failing in our attempt to harm, is it still immoral? Should we intervene? Under what circumstances is it right to do so, if it is ever right to do so?
11. Is all destruction the same? Is all corruption the same? Are all deaths equal? Does everyone deserve equal rights and equal treatment and equal protections? Does every person who commits a crime deserve an equal punishment, regardless of other circumstances or concerns? What do we do when there is an imbalance of rights? Do we have a right to intervene in other cultures which do not subscribe to our viewpoint on these matters, and under what circumstances?
I'm afraid when it comes to morality, you will only encounter an endless sea of questions. Questions that some think they have the answers to, but because this is philosophy, not science, there is no answer sheet... and the only answers are the ones we provide.
I think that whoever has the best reasons and the best philosophy which creates the fairest treatment for all (not most) is the correct philosophy. And I do believe there are some universal truths that are worth fighting for (to prevent the extermination of civilian populations, for example) and others which are not (some people believe in forcing a child to undergo circumcision, and I disagree, but I cannot intervene using force).
Ultimately any non-religious morality is a work in progress. And as we have seen, even religious authorities often amend what they consider right and wrong. So I don't think anyone has all the answers, but I believe if we sit down and think carefully, we can find most of them together and have those answers make sense and be fair for everyone.
Reply With Quote
.jpg "Meneldil's Avatar")
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Bookmarks