Is morality based in meaning?
- lullabyleague
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: May 23rd, 2018, 5:23 pm
Is morality based in meaning?
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.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Is morality based in meaning?
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: Is morality based in meaning?
Welcome! And good question.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.
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.
-
- Posts: 251
- Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am
Re: Is morality based in meaning?
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.
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Is morality based in meaning?
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.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?
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.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Is morality based in 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.
Is this true? Who are "we"?We treat morality as though it is more meaningful than any other aspect of human existence.
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.
Of course.Is morality simply a tool handed down to us through evolution, for the advantage of social alliance and group fitness?
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?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.
Be careful of this! Many of our negative traits are the flip-side or extreme instance of necessary ones.(for example: othering, the insatiable and destructive desire for comfort and power, etc.)
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.
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.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.
-
- Posts: 110
- Joined: June 2nd, 2022, 4:43 am
Re: Is morality based in meaning?
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.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?
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:
Therefore, for morality to contain meaning in of itself, it would necessarily need to precede human nature.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.
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.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.
The same is the case with morality. It starts with the quest (potential for moral consideration).
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 755
- Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am
Re: Is morality based in meaning?
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.
-
- Posts: 1125
- Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Re: Is morality based in meaning?
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.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.
- Hobbit
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: September 7th, 2023, 9:45 pm
Re: Is morality based in meaning?
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.
-
- Posts: 1125
- Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Re: Is morality based on meaning?
- Sea Turtle
- Posts: 182
- Joined: July 17th, 2023, 8:49 pm
Re: Is morality based in meaning?
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.
-
- Posts: 1125
- Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Re: Is morality based on meaning?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15155
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Is morality based in meaning?
-
- Posts: 1125
- Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Re: Is morality based in meaning?
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.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023