Is morality based in meaning?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
User avatar
lullabyleague
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: May 23rd, 2018, 5:23 pm

Is morality based in meaning?

Post by lullabyleague »

There is a question that follows me through many facets of my life and I can't seem to shake it or come to any kind of satisfying answer: Does morality contain meaning? We treat morality as though it is more meaningful than any other aspect of human existence. But is it? Is it more meaningful than any other mundane and expendable part of us?
Is morality simply a tool handed down to us through evolution, for the advantage of social alliance and group fitness? To answer yes implies that we ought to group the validity of our moral instincts along with other evolutionary gifts we have inherited, and some of those are not exactly positive (for example: othering, the insatiable and destructive desire for comfort and power, etc.) and many of them are in conflict with moral reason. To answer no implies that there is something more to it; that either our emotional instinct for morality is a compass pointing true north toward fundamental laws of the universe (which is only imaginable to me through spiritual explanation), or that there are rational explanations for morality that expand beyond our temporary societal benefits.
Morality, like economics and law, has a profound place of importance for the benefit of a given society. That deals with the function of morality, its ends being the success of a village/city/nation. What I desire (in a big way) is a reason more meaningful and fundamental (basically, a reason that matches the way we regard and treat morality). If such a reason doesn't exist (while it would not FEEL right to me) it seems logically sound, save for the fear of punishment, to disregard morality. If such a reason does exist, I have a great desire to know it.
Anyone that is spiritual or religious has an easy answer to this. In fact, the only answers I've heard on this question so far, also from atheists in my circles, at least edge toward suspending reason for the sake of a vague spiritual feeling of rightness in the world and existence. I'd be eager to hear any perspectives I'm leaving out, and I'm particularly interested in what any atheists have to say, since that is the crux of this question for myself.

I couldn't produce a similar thread from the forum's search tools, but if you know of any please send them my way, thanks. And thank you for any input! It's greatly appreciated.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Is morality based in meaning?

Post by Eduk »

Morality can be logically explained as being of existential benefit for our genes. Altruism is also a genuine experience which transcends pure existential benefit. Much like consciousness. That is my take.
Unknown means unknown.
Gertie
Posts: 2165
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Is morality based in meaning?

Post by Gertie »

lullabyleague wrote: May 23rd, 2018, 6:46 pm There is a question that follows me through many facets of my life and I can't seem to shake it or come to any kind of satisfying answer: Does morality contain meaning? We treat morality as though it is more meaningful than any other aspect of human existence. But is it? Is it more meaningful than any other mundane and expendable part of us?
Is morality simply a tool handed down to us through evolution, for the advantage of social alliance and group fitness? To answer yes implies that we ought to group the validity of our moral instincts along with other evolutionary gifts we have inherited, and some of those are not exactly positive (for example: othering, the insatiable and destructive desire for comfort and power, etc.) and many of them are in conflict with moral reason. To answer no implies that there is something more to it; that either our emotional instinct for morality is a compass pointing true north toward fundamental laws of the universe (which is only imaginable to me through spiritual explanation), or that there are rational explanations for morality that expand beyond our temporary societal benefits.
Morality, like economics and law, has a profound place of importance for the benefit of a given society. That deals with the function of morality, its ends being the success of a village/city/nation. What I desire (in a big way) is a reason more meaningful and fundamental (basically, a reason that matches the way we regard and treat morality). If such a reason doesn't exist (while it would not FEEL right to me) it seems logically sound, save for the fear of punishment, to disregard morality. If such a reason does exist, I have a great desire to know it.
Anyone that is spiritual or religious has an easy answer to this. In fact, the only answers I've heard on this question so far, also from atheists in my circles, at least edge toward suspending reason for the sake of a vague spiritual feeling of rightness in the world and existence. I'd be eager to hear any perspectives I'm leaving out, and I'm particularly interested in what any atheists have to say, since that is the crux of this question for myself.

I couldn't produce a similar thread from the forum's search tools, but if you know of any please send them my way, thanks. And thank you for any input! It's greatly appreciated.
Welcome! And good question. :)

In our post-god, post-modern world we're faced with thinking afresh about such questions, and imo have to be prepared for the answers to be less tidy and satisfying than in the world of the old certainties.

You're right that science is now explaining the roots of our moral/social intuitions, which came to be associated as objectively Right and Wrong Morality (justified by God or Reason).

So the question for us in the light of this knowledge, is can we still justifiably get an Ought from the Is of evolutionary utility?

I believe we can. The answer lies in recognising the special nature of conscious experience.

Subjective conscious experience brought meaning and value into a universe of dead rocks physically interacting. Because experiential states have this special qualiative nature (the 'what it's like'-ness Nagel speaks of). We commonly call this quality of life, or well-being.

That's why it doesn't matter if I smash a rock, but it does matter if I smash a person's head in. I'm harming their quality of life, their well-being. It's so obvious, we often don't think through why it matters. But it does matter, because conscious creatures have this quality of life, which can be wonderful or terrible, and everything in between. And imo, that is as good as it gets for a moral justification for Oughts, or moral duties. Why Oughts matter regardless of our evolutionary story.
Judaka
Posts: 251
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Is morality based in meaning?

Post by Judaka »

Meaning necessarily comes from interpretation and interpretation doesn't rely on anything and is only limited by our lack of imagination, closed-mindedness and beliefs. If morality was the holiest compass given to us by God or a necessary aspect of all good in our world - would it mandate you interpret it as being meaningful? Would it be any different if morality was instead the most noble thing? Or most practical thing? Or most necessary thing? And could it not have meaning if it was none of these things? Could someone know it is flawed and still use it as a meaningful and important compass that they've accepted?

Personally I think morality is highly egocentric, with the exception of religion which makes it either arbitrary or controlling/political. I never really believed morality was necessary for society to function, it's not as though humans ever had the option to live by themselves. Morality is a coping mechanism in some sense, it's compensation for what you lack and a punishment for those you're too weak or cowardly to punish yourself. If a dictator isn't evil then he's just powerful and if a sexually promiscuous girl isn't a slut then she's just popular.

None of that matters though, every answer to every "meaning" question is the same, interpretation does have relationship with truth but not such a precise one that we should study truth to understand interpretation. If you're completely free from any desire for morality to have a meaning then just use it like a tool, I think it has many uses and that makes it a pretty good tool.
User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Is morality based in meaning?

Post by ThomasHobbes »

lullabyleague wrote: May 23rd, 2018, 6:46 pm There is a question that follows me through many facets of my life and I can't seem to shake it or come to any kind of satisfying answer: Does morality contain meaning? We treat morality as though it is more meaningful than any other aspect of human existence. But is it? Is it more meaningful than any other mundane and expendable part of us?
It seems to me that you have an odd understanding of "meaning". First you ask is it based in meaning then you seem to accept it has meaning, and ask how much.
Meaning is not inherent, but a thing bestowed by people upon the things they observe. A rock is meaningless until used by a human to smash a skull or build a wall. Then rock means weapon or building material. Such is the case with morality. And since it is all conceptual; it is ALL meaning.
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is morality based in meaning?

Post by Alias »

lullabyleague wrote: May 23rd, 2018, 6:46 pm Does morality contain meaning?
Every product of the human mind contains meaning. Indeed, every product of any mind does, but it is often difficult to discern or interpret the meaning of what other species hold self-evident. It can be difficult enough to discern the meaning of unfamiliar members of our own species. Because our minds are complicated and fanciful, we come up with some pretty obscure ideas and rules.
While a spaniel from Hong Kong has no problem interpreting the attitude and intentions of a terrier from Minneapolis, their owners may have to work very hard at communicating. They still can, though.
We treat morality as though it is more meaningful than any other aspect of human existence.
Is this true? Who are "we"?
Some people are so intensely invested in their tribe's morality that they would kill their own child for breaking a rule, while others disregard social taboos altogether. In between, there is a range of adherence from the rigorous to the lackadaisical. Most of us practice a personal, selective version of our own society's moral dictates, applying, bending, breaking and interpreting rules as we see fit in each given circumstance.
Is morality simply a tool handed down to us through evolution, for the advantage of social alliance and group fitness?
Of course.
To answer yes implies that we ought to group the validity of our moral instincts along with other evolutionary gifts we have inherited, and some of those are not exactly positive ...and many of them are in conflict with moral reason.
What is "moral reason"? Before you can group items, you must have a clear definition of the categories. Where is the line between instinct and edict? Which moral imperatives apply universally; which are culturally derived; which are deliberately invented? Who does the reasoning? By what criteria?
(for example: othering, the insatiable and destructive desire for comfort and power, etc.)
Be careful of this! Many of our negative traits are the flip-side or extreme instance of necessary ones.
Group cohesion, family loyalty; the drive to improve living conditions for one's offspring; the need for organization, etc.
The moral code that outlaws acting on these traits is bound to fail as most humans are incapable of obeying such a law (See: Christianity and Communism). Building in safeguards for moderation has been far more effective (as in the codes of most American Native societies)

The best way I know of assessing moral codes is by comparison.
You can make a chart of all the tenets that keep a society stable and functioning smoothly over time, and those that lead to conflict and strife in a society. My superficial observation is that the most durable codes are those with internal consistency, a realistic psychology and sufficient flexibility to allow case-by-case judgment. The least stable ones are those that contain fundamental self-contradiction, inaccurate depiction of human nature and rigid application. The more harshly punitive a legal structure is, the more it disrupts social interaction.
I couldn't produce a similar thread from the forum's search tools, but if you know of any please send them my way, thanks.
There is a guy named 'prof' on several forums who has been touting his own system of ethics for years. I think he's got a thread going right now on Philosophy Now. https://forum.philosophynow.org/search. ... 1c17f86e27 Don't know whether that's any use to you.
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire
snt
Posts: 110
Joined: June 2nd, 2022, 4:43 am

Re: Is morality based in meaning?

Post by snt »

lullabyleague wrote: May 23rd, 2018, 6:46 pmThere is a question that follows me through many facets of my life and I can't seem to shake it or come to any kind of satisfying answer: Does morality contain meaning? We treat morality as though it is more meaningful than any other aspect of human existence. But is it? Is it more meaningful than any other mundane and expendable part of us?
The only case in which morality could contain meaning in of itself (i.e. not subjective meaning provided by a human mind) would be when morality would precede human nature and provide meaning to the human and its concepts.

Many philosophers argue that morality comes 'from within'. William James in The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life argued the following:

"Abstract rules indeed can help; but they help the less in proportion as our intuitions are more piercing, and our vocation is the stronger for the moral life. For every real dilemma is in literal strictness a unique situation; and the exact combination of ideals realized and ideals disappointed which each decision creates is always a universe without a precedent, and for which no adequate previous rule exists."

A philosopher on this forum replied with the following:
Thomyum2 wrote: January 14th, 2022, 11:23 pmI agree with this - I think that we can be guided by rules and by experience, but ultimately each moral choice is one that we face alone and that we can only make it ourselves. And we each must rely on our own good will and our intuition - in other words to look within ourselves - in order to make it. There is no certainty in it other than that which we find within our own being.
Therefore, for morality to contain meaning in of itself, it would necessarily need to precede human nature.

lullabyleague wrote: May 23rd, 2018, 6:46 pmWhat I desire (in a big way) is a reason more meaningful and fundamental (basically, a reason that matches the way we regard and treat morality). If such a reason doesn't exist (while it would not FEEL right to me) it seems logically sound, save for the fear of punishment, to disregard morality. If such a reason does exist, I have a great desire to know it.
Perhaps the quest is the answer. If a purpose or reason of life could be defined beforehand, it would not be required to discover it and that would cause life to lose its meaning. While this seems difficult and problematic, in the same time it provides meaning.

The same is the case with morality. It starts with the quest (potential for moral consideration).
value
Premium Member
Posts: 740
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Is morality based in meaning?

Post by value »

Morality is a concept that indicates that humans consider something consider-worthy while the origin of that consideration-worthiness is as of today unexplainable, resulting in an endless debate about the nature of morality which is evident from the thousands of topics about it on this forum.

Morality is related to meaningful experience. In my opinion, the a priori meaning that lays at the root of the cosmos and consciousness, and which is necessarily a requirement for the potential for value in the form of 'good per se' (because valuing is not about making a choice but to value on behalf of 'good') is the origin of morality and in a sense, what humans recognize as factor for consideration-worthiness for the concept morality, lays at the root of the cosmos.

Simply said: (the consideration-worthiness factor of) morality lays at the root of existence and the cosmos.
popeye1945
Posts: 1085
Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
Location: canada

Re: Is morality based in meaning?

Post by popeye1945 »

lullabyleague wrote: May 23rd, 2018, 6:46 pm There is a question that follows me through many facets of my life and I can't seem to shake it or come to any kind of satisfying answer: Does morality contain meaning? We treat morality as though it is more meaningful than any other aspect of human existence. But is it? Is it more meaningful than any other mundane and expendable part of us?
Is morality simply a tool handed down to us through evolution, for the advantage of social alliance and group fitness? To answer yes implies that we ought to group the validity of our moral instincts along with other evolutionary gifts we have inherited, and some of those are not exactly positive (for example: othering, the insatiable and destructive desire for comfort and power, etc.) and many of them are in conflict with moral reason. To answer no implies that there is something more to it; that either our emotional instinct for morality is a compass pointing true north toward fundamental laws of the universe (which is only imaginable to me through spiritual explanation), or that there are rational explanations for morality that expand beyond our temporary societal benefits.
Morality, like economics and law, has a profound place of importance for the benefit of a given society. That deals with the function of morality, its ends being the success of a village/city/nation. What I desire (in a big way) is a reason more meaningful and fundamental (basically, a reason that matches the way we regard and treat morality). If such a reason doesn't exist (while it would not FEEL right to me) it seems logically sound, save for the fear of punishment, to disregard morality. If such a reason does exist, I have a great desire to know it.
Anyone that is spiritual or religious has an easy answer to this. In fact, the only answers I've heard on this question so far, also from atheists in my circles, at least edge toward suspending reason for the sake of a vague spiritual feeling of rightness in the world and existence. I'd be eager to hear any perspectives I'm leaving out, and I'm particularly interested in what any atheists have to say, since that is the crux of this question for myself.

I couldn't produce a similar thread from the forum's search tools, but if you know of any please send them my way, thanks. And thank you for any input! It's greatly appreciated.
Morality is based upon self-identity with that of others or an expanded concept of the self, with this comes compassion, so in a very real sense, it is self-interest. As Schopenhauer stated, when someone violates the first principle, that of survival, to come to the aid of another is a metaphysical realization that just grabs one. That realization is this, you and the other are one, the self in you is the self in all. Also stated nicely in the Upanishads. This metaphysical realization is not particular to humanity but is common among our animal cousins. All organisms are reactive creatures, the individual, but a creature for day congregates into various forms of societies as a reaction to the harshness of nature in its natural selection processes. adapt or die. Through the organism's reactionary nature, it insulates itself you might say in the community/society.
User avatar
Hobbit
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: September 7th, 2023, 9:45 pm

Re: Is morality based in meaning?

Post by Hobbit »

The concept of moral equality is a kind of starting point for many ethical teachings - for moral is the point of view from which all people have equal value. And this is the main idea.
Hence all the religious teachings like love your enemy, do not kill, and so on. All this changes from teaching to teaching, the basis of morality is that all people have equal importance.
Further, the principles of morality can evolve and change. Values such as caring, compassion and safety, for example, are more important now than in the 1980s, the importance of respect for authority has fallen since the early 20th century, while judgments of right and wrong based on loyalty to country and family have steadily risen. increased. But the starting point is always the same - equality. This is its basis, its meaning.
popeye1945
Posts: 1085
Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
Location: canada

Re: Is morality based on meaning?

Post by popeye1945 »

Morality's seed is that of identifying one's self with the self in others, only then does compassion arise in the recognition of a fellow creature with the capacity for suffering. Once compassion has arisen it is the essence or foundation of societies. It is this, in the form of self-interest, the expanded concept of the self, that makes civilization possible. Morality is meaning, a subjective sentiment which when expressed, is a biological extension and expression of one's humanity towards one's fellow creatures.
User avatar
Sea Turtle
Posts: 182
Joined: July 17th, 2023, 8:49 pm

Re: Is morality based in meaning?

Post by Sea Turtle »

Humans are a container(mostly water) with the mind being a sub container within the body. The mind host a virtual machine that contains processes like morality. Those process access other libraries within that same virtual machine such as beliefs. When the beliefs get updated, the presented morals will already inherit the new results.

It gets very messy when a physical interrupt such as emotion gets activated.

Morality doesn't have meaning of itself. It is a predictable process that is based on lower level function such as biology and beliefs.
popeye1945
Posts: 1085
Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
Location: canada

Re: Is morality based on meaning?

Post by popeye1945 »

Is morality based on meaning? Morality is based on experience, for experience is meaning, this experience is processed through understanding and then attributed to the outside world. Other people and organisms are part of your outside world, hopefully as somewhat more than objects. When these objects are most like your presence as an object in the world, it is much easier to identify with them. Only with this identification does compassion the seed of morality arise.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14942
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is morality based in meaning?

Post by Sy Borg »

Morality stems from sociality. Humans were far from the first social animal to have codes of behaviour. The Capuchin monkey experiment gives us a window into one of the roots of morality - the idea of fairness, of rewards being distributed fairly:


popeye1945
Posts: 1085
Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
Location: canada

Re: Is morality based in meaning?

Post by popeye1945 »

Sy Borg wrote: September 27th, 2023, 1:17 am Morality stems from sociality. Humans were far from the first social animal to have codes of behaviour. The Capuchin monkey experiment gives us a window into one of the roots of morality - the idea of fairness, of rewards being distributed fairly:


Meaning stems from the physical world-altering one's biology. Morality stems from the seed of identification of one's self with the self in others, through which morality/empathy arises. This translates into a process of self-interest and societies form through an expanded concept of the self where you and the other/others, are one in self-interest, a great aid to self-survival, the collective self as society.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021