GM Morton
Our debate so far is about:
I. Ethics vs Morality
II. Religion as the source of the moral perspective
III. Contention about the meaning of Value, namely “inherent value”
IV. Utopian view on “fulfillment” and “quality of life”
I was in the process of writing a nice long reply, when my PC initiated a restart due to windows update. A lesson to be learned here… I’m going for a much shorter version, a summary really.
I. Ethics vs Morality
Ranvier position:
Ethics and Morality aren’t the same concept.
Ethics – defines acts of an individual judged in the context of moral values (social morality)
Morality - is a social concept (in context of religion, from previous remarks in several posts)
Essentially the terms Ethics and Morality are both human concepts derived from the European Philosophy
Such concepts are true facts of “rules or customs” in human behavior observed in other cultures, apart from any definition for Ethics and Morality in “modern” Philosophy (presumably mostly European for most philosophers, since people rarely quote Confucius).
In Aristotle's major ethical work called "Nichomachean Ethics." It’s implicit in the title that Aristotle’s work was on his discussion of concept of Ethics (in context of social morality as subject to praise or blame)
Both Ethics and Morality are derived from the Culture of given Civilization, where Culture consists of influences from: Religion, language, history, natural geography, science, art, politics, economy etc. including Philosophy
Naturally, as part of the Culture, given Philosophy diffuses into the culture affecting the political system, law, and customs, although most people are ignorant of such a fact. The same way as some Philosophers do not consider the culture (including religion) to influence given philosophy.
GE Morton position:
1. Among philosophers the two terms are essentially synonymous, although "ethics" is more often used in common speech to denote rules for special fields, e.g., "medical ethics," "legal ethics," "business ethics," etc.
2. Yes. Pre-civilized tribal cultures carried their religions with them as they evolved into civilized societies. They did not bring any moral theories with them, however. They were not needed, and are not found, in tribal cultures.
3. That requires some explanation. Ethics, or moral theories, are attempts to formulate codes of conduct in some deliberate, rational, systematic way. Tribal cultures had norms, of course, but they were not products of reflection or rational inquiry. They were part of the folkways of the tribe, handed down from generation to generation, absorbed and internalized without thought or question. Morality, as we think of it today, is a subject of philosophical (and popular) inquiry, and is controversial. Not until the advent of civilization did those questions and controversies begin to appear. Like codified systems of law, codified systems and theories of morals are products of civilization.
4. Oh, that is not so. As Bertrand Russel once wrote (paraphrasing, from memory), "Modern thought is permeated with philosophical speculations of the past." Americans may not know that Jefferson's thesis in the Declaration of Independence was largely borrowed from the philosopher John Locke, or that scientific method was conceived by the philosopher Francis Bacon, or that the separation of powers doctrine, which divides their government's powers among legislative, executive, and judicial branches, was formulated by the philosophers Aristotle and Montsequieu. But they were.
5. I never claimed that philosophical ethics were necessary for the "development of culture." I don't know what you're arguing against. The subject of the discussion was whether there is a difference between "ethics" and "morality."
Ranvier’s Interpretation:
1. Ethics and Morality is essentially the same concept
2. Religions of tribal cultures had no influence on “morality” of future cultures (Roman Empire)
3. “Ethics and Morals” have nothing to do with religion, customs, or culture.
Ethics and Morals is strictly a philosophical attempt to formulate systemic codes in modern society. There were no such things in the past as “ethics and morals” in tribal cultures until Aristotle and Greek Philosophy that permeated all other cultures but is not really necessary… reflected in 4 and 5.
4. With the spread of the European philosophy (unclear if it’s necessary or not in culture, although such philosophy permeates culture) to other cultures through presumably colonization and superiority of culture. This permeation also includes America much later in the history and is global in modern days as modern philosophical principles of “Ethics and Morality”.
5. Philosophical “Ethics and Morals” have nothing to do with other cultures and such concept(s) is/are not necessary for the “development of culture”
Ranvier’s conclusion:
Confused not only about “Ethics and Morals” but opponent’s concept of culture, where in my perspective culture consists of: Religion, language, history, natural geography, science, art, politics, economy etc., including Philosophy of some kind, as in Eastern Philosophy.
What is this concept of "Ethics/Morality" really about? Is it purely an intellectual proposition from the philosophical deliberations or does it draw upon something else from the culture? Why would Aristotle mention the “soul”?
This leads us to the second point…
II. Religion as the source of the moral perspective
Ranvier
The concept of morality stems from such religious convictions that all life, especially human life is sacred in holding a unique consciousness and “soul” or “spirit” that is able to tune in to the divine. Such morality presupposes the “Natural Rights” of every sentient being.
GE Morton
No. The concept does not and did not spring from that source; it arose from the practical need for rules governing interactions between moral agents in a civilized social setting (a non-kinship, non-tribal social setting). The various religions merely sought to justify their preferred sets of rules by appeal to divine authority.
I think that we should start over from these points:
Are you stating that the “concept” of “morality” (the word) did not spring from the religious source or that actual morality (customs) have nothing to do with “moral values”? Are you claiming that the “moral conduct” is strictly driven by government rules, philosophical rules, or practical considerations but has nothing to do with religion and customs? Then I asked what the “moral agent” is. Basically what I understand so far, is that you describe the “moral agent” as a conscious organism (human) that is capable of deductive reasoning and can intellectually reason “morality” based on his interests in desire to pursue them in context of other “moral agents” that may have different interests. This “moral agent” is capable of formulating “moral principles” in the “moral field”. All this is deduced as principles in the modern society based on Philosophy that has nothing to do with religion.
My question became: How do we deduce such principles? What is the philosophical logic of good vs evil or right vs wrong act? How do we derive such values?
This brought us to the third point of value.
III. Contention about the meaning of Value, namely “inherent value”
Based on my post #39, I derive my position as everything has an “inherent value” because it exists. Every object or a person has such inherent value simply because it exists. “Star dust” (Nebula) has an inherent value because it cave rise to a solar system, which it turn has an inherent value because it gave rise to life, which in turn gave rise through evolution to human life that has an inherent value because human can continue to evolve to give rise to a new species. This is logically derived from personal “religion” rooted in science. But in modern secular society “value” is a subjective perception of the “inherent value” of objects and people in terms of usefulness and profit, giving example of slavery.
GE Morton position:
Values --- including the value of human life --- have no basis, in the sense of being derived from, or dependent upon, something else more fundamental. They are sui generis, inexplicable, and idiosyncratic. To say that something has value is merely to say that someone desires it and would give up something --- time, effort, money --- to acquire it or retain it. What one would give up to obtain a desired thing is the measure of its value to him. Value is not a property of things; it is a relation between a person, the valuer, and a thing --- the relation of being desired by that person. You need rules of interaction between moral agents in a social setting to assure that Alfie's pursuit of X does not interfere with Bruno's pursuit of Y. The rules of a sound public morality serve a purpose similar to traffic rules --- to allow all drivers to get where they're going in one piece, without crashes. They don't presume to dictate where anyone is going or what routes they must take.
My interpretation was that such belief or conviction is illogical and
dangerous, without such “inherent fundamental value” to human life or anything else for that matter. This is evident in the modern philosophy as lack of concern for the environmental protection or the atrocities of Atheistic “movements” of the 20th century (WW I, WW II, and many others). You derived instead, quite clearly, that the “value” is ONLY based on the desire to obtain something to “possess” or “own” and retain that something by sacrificing time, effort, or money. In your perspective there is no “inherent value” to anything or anyone other than the subjective “in the eye of beholder” value of usefulness, that lead me to stipulate that humans are useless by birth unless they are useful. Following such logic, since there is no ultimate purpose or goal, everything is meaningless. The traffic rules analogy is a commonly used premise to depict the logic of “rules of sound public morality”, whatever that means. I’m being sarcastic because these are just laws that have nothing to do with morality. Such “traffic rules” are inadequate or even inappropriate in discussing moral issues such as abortion or assisted suicide.
Can you appreciate the logic for the “inherent value”, as well as the conceptual necessity for such “inherent value”? Otherwise what would be the rational for the procreation, other than those children may be useful someday. It’s illogical in such context to sacrifice resources (time, effort, and money) on a vague notion that children may offer some usefulness in the future. One can establish rules based on “value” but not any type of moral principle. One may find some personal “meaning” or “purpose” based on the desire for pleasure or fear of pain but ultimately it’s all meaningless. There is no logical point to anything other than to continue in self-delusion of meaningless purpose just to be able to continue enjoying inconsequential life in breeding like bacteria to ultimate individual death and ultimately extinction of human species or the planet. Why even struggle to come up with morality in the first place, what is the point? Killing a homeless person on the sidewalk is inconsequential. Why should we even care? Why should we care about anything?
This brings us to the last point
IV. Utopian view on “fulfillment” and “quality of life”
I begin to understand the perspective of other people with for mentioned philosophy based on “value”, where the individual “quality of life” is inconsequential of others, aside from the “moral rules” that prevent others from “driving over each other”. However as per conversation with Gertie, I fail to perceive logic that would rationalize the need for any such “moral rules” at all.