Should Morals Be Judged In A Cultural Context?

[Fooloso4]

Xeadas:

If the answer is yes, that's not for the best, then can't we have an absolute standard that goodness cannot be a result of socially created suffering?

The most obvious example of socially created suffering is war. There are some who hold that war is immoral but others think that at least some wars are justified.Some will argue that capitalism is socially created suffering. Some will argue that the results of selling unhealthy foods is socially created suffering. The unintended consequences of the attempt to do good by preventing socially created suffering can create socially created suffering, and so, is the action good if it prevents some form of suffering but creates another?

[Spectrum]

Mark 1955:

So how do I tell the difference between a cultural moral standard and an absolute moral standard.

I do not think there are absolute moral standards. As I tried to explain, I am a moral relativist because I deny absolute standards, but that moral relativism does not entail nihilism, or reduce morality to a matter of personal or cultural standards. The goal of moral deliberation, as I see it, is to determine what seems best. It is a tentative and ongoing practice. We may not agree and we may in time come to see things differently. We do not discover final answers but working solutions to particular problems.

There are no ontological absolute moral standards [e.g. from a God], but to establish a Moral and Ethical Framework and System we must work with 'absolute' moral standards reasoned out from our collective reason faculties.

Humanity must establish via reason absolute moral standards [ideals] as guides only and not be be enforceable. These are the fixed goal posts that are not supposed to change as long as possible. These absolute moral standards must be assigned priorities and values then arranged within hierarchy.

The next stage is to adopt and flex the above absolute moral standards as ethical maxims to guide the practical, thus relative to the cultural, social and various circumstances.

For example, the absolute moral standard on killing is;
The killing of another human being is not permissible. period! no ifs and buts.

In the implementation of ethics, society or the individual may flex the above absolute ideal as;
The killing of another human being is not permissible, except in the following circumstances.

The above process generate what we would call a 'Moral Gap' i.e. between the absolute moral standard and the flexed ethical maxim.
The objective here is humanity must make attempts to narrow this gap as much as possible.

Meanwhile in the social and cultural contexts, the ethical maxims are;
1. Enforced as laws, i.e. legislature and judiciary
2. Adopted within one own moral compass and conscience.

In practice there will a gap between what is going on in reality and the ethical maxims, i.e.. the Ethical Gap.
Society and the individual must manage this Ethical Gap.

Thus to manage an effective Moral and Ethical Framework and System we need 'Absolute' Moral Standards [ideals] as a guide, otherwise we will be fighting against moving goal posts all the time.

[Fooloso4]

Spectrum:

Thus to manage an effective Moral and Ethical Framework and System we need 'Absolute' Moral Standards [ideals] as a guide, otherwise we will be fighting against moving goal posts all the time.

I think the legal model based on case precedent or casuistry is useful.

We live in an age where the goal posts have moved significantly and quickly, this despite what some think is divine authority.

[Xeadas]

is the action good if it prevents some form of suffering but creates another?

I think this only means that establishing what's right and wrong in a situation is difficult, but that does not mean that we do not rely on absolute moral standards in assessing what is right and wrong. This is exactly what Spectrum laid out so well above.

The reasoning that would be used in assessing whether a war is just or whether capitalism creates suffering is based on a moral absolute that could be said like this: Does the practice promote or hinder the welfare of the people affected by it? Whether there are unintended consequences of reasoning with the moral absolute does not mean that we don't have moral absolutes, or even that they aren't useful and necessary. These consequences could be seen as reasonable in some cases: people aren't forced to eat unhealthy foods; it's their choice. Even if they do eat them, if it's in moderation, snacks and red meat (for example) aren't a pressing threat such that we should reevaluate our reasoning to accommodate what people themselves choose to do. That seems reasonable to me, and yet we used even another moral absolute there, this time a liberal one, more debatable than the first but still an absolute that can be used: rules should not infringe on an individuals' freedom to choose, even if individuals have the power to hurt themselves. This rule was established not too long ago in human history, and deemed even more true just by looking at what happens in societies that disregarded it, such as in the Soviet Union. That didn't turn out well at all, and partly because this second absolute was challenged and deemed immoral. Again, this is pretty much Spectrum's answer.

-- Updated April 10th, 2017, 4:43 pm to add the following --

I am convinced that morals of individuals are genetically generated, and were formed by evolution. All moral code can be reduced to "save that genome which closest resembles mine, even at personal sacrifice".

Then why do we have different moral codes? Because of evolution.

Who said this?

What you're saying, if I'm getting this correct, is:
What all moral rules have in common is that they are egotistical, which is necessary because we have to propagate our genes, an evolutionary instinct.

That's a claim for psychological egoism, since it claims that what we do is in our own interest exclusively. So, whatever it is that we desire to do is because of psychological egoism. But this doesn't mean that we always choose to do what we desire; we can still do something because we fell that we should. A choice is not the same thing as a desire, and there are many cases which prove that. But going even deeper: even if we conceded that we always act on our strongest desires, then that doesn't mean that our desires are only based on self-interest. The psychological egoist claim would mean that we'd assess an action as being based on desire or not, since all desire is self-interested, when instead we should be asking what desires an action is based on. Acting on your desires is not equal to looking out for yourself, because that depends on what you desire, and it's not clear at all that people desire only what would propagate their genes, or that that is what all desires boil down to.

[Fooloso4]

Xeadas:

The reasoning that would be used in assessing whether a war is just or whether capitalism creates suffering is based on a moral absolute that could be said like this: Does the practice promote or hinder the welfare of the people affected by it?

But that itself is a question without an absolute answer. While I agree that there is common ground there is still room for basic disagreement. A few examples: Does abortion promote or hinder the welfare of the people affected by it? How large is the circle of people affected? I do not want to get into a debate about abortion but there are several other questions that arise that find no absolute answer. Does going to war promote or hinder the welfare of the people affected by it? The same question can be asked of capitalism. The answer is always that some benefit and some are harmed, and some are benefitted in one way but harmed in another.

Whether there are unintended consequences of reasoning with the moral absolute does not mean that we don't have moral absolutes …

This depends on whether you think consequences matter in moral deliberation, and there is no absolute answer to that question. Some will say that all that matters is the intention to do good, but others will say that if the results are bad the action was bad.

… more debatable than the first but still an absolute that can be used: rules should not infringe on an individuals' freedom to choose …

If it is debatable then in what sense is it absolute? If there are exceptions how is it absolute? I might think I should have the freedom to commit suicide or take drugs but others will disagree.

[Spectrum]

Spectrum:

Thus to manage an effective Moral and Ethical Framework and System we need 'Absolute' Moral Standards [ideals] as a guide, otherwise we will be fighting against moving goal posts all the time.

I think the legal model based on case precedent or casuistry is useful.

We live in an age where the goal posts have moved significantly and quickly, this despite what some think is divine authority.

Actually the legal model is not exactly Morality [as defined].

The legal model based on case precedent or casuistry belong to the Political System with elements of ethics. As I mentioned above, this is the legislature and judiciary aspects of a Political system.

Morality-proper is confined to the individual and the collective consciousness, where the governor, legislator [based on reason, intelligence, wisdom, philosophy] and judge-jury-prosecutor [conscience] are within the mind of the individual[s] and acting collectively with other individuals.

It is only when the above system within the mind of the individual[s] are not effective that an external legislature and judiciary is necessary as it is at the present.

However morality-proper is progressing [albeit slowly] within the collective consciousness of humanity.

-- Updated Mon Apr 10, 2017 9:38 pm to add the following --

I am convinced that morals of individuals are genetically generated, and were formed by evolution. All moral code can be reduced to "save that genome which closest resembles mine, even at personal sacrifice".

Then why do we have different moral codes? Because of evolution.

Who said this?
What you're saying, if I'm getting this correct, is:
What all moral rules have in common is that they are egotistical, which is necessary because we have to propagate our genes, an evolutionary instinct.

There is truth is asserting all our Moral rules [intended ideals] emerged from evolution.

DNA wise all humans are programmed to produce the next generation to prevent extinction of the human species. In practice, there are variations to the above.

How Absolute Moral Rules Emerged?
Using reason!
Take the ideal imperative; "Thou Shall Not Kill" period! not ifs, no buts.
Moral Rules apply to every individual human.
The grounding reason for this is, if every human is given the permission to kill, then theoretically and potentially, the human species will be extinct.
Therefore [theoretically, ideally and potentially], 'Thou Shall Not Kill' period! no ifs, no buts [implied another human being] should be an ideal 'absolute' moral rule.

It is obvious 'killing another human' is critical to the mission of each individual evolutionarily, thus this imperative should be given the highest ranking within the hierarchy of moral rules. But this ideal absolute moral rule derived from evolutionary instinct should not be enforceable from an external system.

Because in reality humans are multi-variate in different conditions, there is a need to establish variations to the above ideal absolute moral standards to adapt to the different conditions. This variation is the Moral Gap and the group must always be mindful to narrow this gap as much as possible to the never-reaching ideal.

Meanwhile on the practical side [Ethics] individuals and groups will have to be guided by the absolute morals whilst managing their own adopted standards and real actions via political judiciary system or personal moral-ethical development.

[Fooloso4]

Spectrum:

Actually the legal model is not exactly Morality [as defined].

Casuistry relies on cases that have set a precedent to help decide present cases that are similar. Just as prior legal case help to decide current legal cases, prior ethical cases help to decide current ethical cases that are similar. Casuistry is an approach that most are familiar with from the legal system. Legal deliberation is not moral or ethical deliberation. A legal determination is not a moral or ethical determination, although both may take into account some of the same things. It is casuistry that I was pointing to not a connection between morality and legality.

[RuleOnu]

First, you haven't provided any proof or evidence establishing morality as relative but a simple declaration.

There are two trains of thought; morality is either subjective or objective, relative or absolute.

If morality is relative, subjective, then torturing a child for fun is not always wrong. If you argue that torturing a child for fun is always wrong, immoral, in all possible worlds, then morality is no longer relative but absolute. Which means that morality is unquestionable.

My response here is to question the posters assertion that morality is relative.

[Eduk]

There are two trains of thought; morality is either subjective or objective,

Could it not be both?
A rock is objective, my perception of a rock is subjective. It feels like you could make a lot of statements about that rock and some would be more subjective and some would be more objective, possibly not in a mutually exclusive way.

[RuleOnu]

There are two trains of thought; morality is either subjective or objective,

Could it not be both?
A rock is objective, my perception of a rock is subjective. It feels like you could make a lot of statements about that rock and some would be more subjective and some would be more objective, possibly not in a mutually exclusive way.

Sorry, we're not talking about rocks.
That's an associative fallacy. More colloquially, a red herring. I don't see what a rock has to do with the subjectivity or objectivity of morality. Unless you intend to "use" a rock to do harm versus sculpting!

Morality has to do the rightness or wrongness of actions. A rock has no ability to act on its on, rightly or wrongly.

Implementing "moral reasoning" whereby (moral) judgements are catagorical, either consequential or deontological. And, the foundations of moral precepts; autonomy, community, and divinity, or, self, social/cultural and divine authority. I'll also include darwinian or divinely manifest as origin. Which has to with whether or not morality is relative or objective.
From my perspective, if darwinian then morality is relative, and if divinely manifest then moraloty is objective.

[Fooloso4]

RuleOnu:

First, you haven't provided any proof or evidence establishing morality as relative but a simple declaration.

If there is an absolute foundation then we do not know it. There are two candidates - God and reason, but neither have provided that foundation.

If morality is relative, subjective, then torturing a child for fun is not always wrong.

Relative and subjective does not mean we have lost the ability to reason or to sense that it is wrong to torture someone.

If you argue that torturing a child for fun is always wrong, immoral, in all possible worlds, then morality is no longer relative but absolute. Which means that morality is unquestionable.

I make no claims about possible worlds.

I am not denying that there are things that we hold to be absolutely wrong. What I am saying is that there is no absolute moral foundation that support of our convictions. There are simply things we cannot condone, but that does not mean that there is something underlying the conviction that can provide any proof or evidence establishing it is wrong.

[Eduk]

Sorry, we're not talking about rocks.

Ah well as you have decided that you know everything already, wouldn't it be simpler to just tell us all which one it is and have done? That would shorten the conversation somewhat.

[Fooloso4]

RuleOnu:

Sorry, we're not talking about rocks.

I think the point is that the rock has an objective existence independent of us, but everything we can observe and say about the rock is subjective and dependent on us. The question is then: does morality exist objectively in the sense of being independent of us? Whether we answer the question in the affirmative or negative everything we can observe and say about morality is subjective and dependent on us.

If the question is answered in the affirmative, how do we discover it? How do we distinguish between conflicting moral claims?

[Belindi]

The question can only be addressed in the context of a particular moral issue. On the one hand, the fact that a culture holds to a particular view and practice does not in an of itself make it morally acceptable. On the other, there are some views and practices that should be accepted as culturally appropriate. So, on the one hand slavery and female circumcision are not morally acceptable even though they are practiced in some places, and, on the other, whether exposing one’s face or hair is morally acceptable is a matter of culture.

I think it important to distinguish between moral relativism and cultural relativism. In short, moral relativism is the recognition that there are no absolute moral authority, and cultural relativism is the claim that what is right and wrong is culturally determined. Some make claims for moral relativism that go much further than others. For some it means that morality is solely a matter of whatever the individual decides, or individual relativism, but others recognize the social nature or morals and so we are not free to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong, good or bad; that moral deliberation is essential.

Morality is too structural to be separated off from culture of moral beliefs and practice in any given society or subculture. Morality is based upon power structures in that society of subculture. There is only one possibility for absolute morality a possibility which -1- touched upon which is that morality is an evolved trait. Evidence for this is in the maturation stages of childhood morality which social psychologists and psycholinguists have researched and documented.

As power structure, morality melds into political ethics. Because morality is embedded in the totality of cultures it's inevitable that there are culture clashes some of which are violent. So, yes, morality should be examined disinterestedly and anthropologically in the cultural context, but it's immature if not sociopathic to hold no personal moral beliefs.

[Iapetus]

Reply to RuleOnu:

There are two trains of thought; morality is either subjective or objective, relative or absolute.

Subjective/objective and relative/absolute are not equivalent distinctions. They mean different things and to discuss them in parallel invites confusion. For the sake of brevity I shall refer to the subjective/objective distinction.

If morality is relative, subjective, then torturing a child for fun is not always wrong.

If everybody in the world agreed that torturing a child for fun is wrong – and I don’t know that this is the case - then it is still not a demonstration of objective morality. People are quite capable of arriving at a common evaluation of an act but from differing ‘moral’ viewpoints. One person might, for example say they condemn the act because they have been taught that it is wrong. Another may say it is wrong through an interpretation of holy texts. Yet another may cite the necessity of minimising harm and maximising welfare. Their overall ‘moralities’ might be very different. The ‘agreement’ is only skin deep.

In any case, saying that something is ‘wrong’ – which is a very broad value judgement – is not the same as saying that it is ‘immoral’ – which is slightly more focused. The distinction is significant. If somebody with serious brain damage was discovered torturing a child, then they would certainly need to be stopped but to call their act ‘immoral’ if they had little or no capacity to determine ‘morality’, would certainly invite discussion, at the very least.

In most ‘moral’ examples, unanimity or uniform interpretation is very far from the case. Laws exist to arbitrate when interpretations differ.

If you argue that torturing a child for fun is always wrong, immoral, in all possible worlds, then morality is no longer relative but absolute. Which means that morality is unquestionable.

I am not sure of the logic of these statements. If any individual asserts that a given act is always wrong then, by definition, they regard ‘their’ morality as unquestionable. But the minute that somebody else questions that interpretation then, by definition, it is no longer unquestionable.