Can Morality and Ethics Really Exist?

TigerNinja · Post by **TigerNinja** » July 26th, 2016, 5:22 pm

For someone of my beliefs, I used to find morality a difficult topic to get my head over. I am atheist as I find religion to lack credibility in the real world (not leaving to offend, but I am just starting MY beliefs); I believe the mind is our interpretation of chemicals and conditioning; but then morality comes. Then my dad introduced me to relativity which gave me a new opinion. In my culture, (Culture in England) we say 'boot'. In America, they say ' trunk'. By my standards, ' trunk' is when I'd probably object. This is a small example. Now imagine 'Randomsford', a fictitious town. In there, genocidal people are people children look up to and adults wish to be. Charitable and friendly people are either arrested or looked down upon.

According to us, this is very bad. The citizens of 'Randomsford', have never known anything else. They believe that the rest of the world is wrong. Some terrorist groups have a similar outlook on society. Through this, can you really blame those terrorist groups? All they know are the things that they have been conditioned to do. They are like Pavlov's dogs. Just conditioned to respond to one thing as bad and the other as good. This is why morality does not exist, in my opinion. What do you think?

Indistinctthinker · Post by **Indistinctthinker** » July 27th, 2016, 5:55 pm

TigerNinja wrote:For someone of my beliefs, I used to find morality a difficult topic to get my head over. I am atheist as I find religion to lack credibility in the real world (not leaving to offend, but I am just starting MY beliefs); I believe the mind is our interpretation of chemicals and conditioning; but then morality comes. Then my dad introduced me to relativity which gave me a new opinion. In my culture, (Culture in England) we say 'boot'. In America, they say ' trunk'. By my standards, ' trunk' is when I'd probably object. This is a small example. Now imagine 'Randomsford', a fictitious town. In there, genocidal people are people children look up to and adults wish to be. Charitable and friendly people are either arrested or looked down upon.

According to us, this is very bad. The citizens of 'Randomsford', have never known anything else. They believe that the rest of the world is wrong. Some terrorist groups have a similar outlook on society. Through this, can you really blame those terrorist groups? All they know are the things that they have been conditioned to do. They are like Pavlov's dogs. Just conditioned to respond to one thing as bad and the other as good. This is why morality does not exist, in my opinion. What do you think?

This doesn't prove the non-existence of morality, but the subjective nature of morality.

Post by **LuckyR** » July 28th, 2016, 12:50 pm

TigerNinja wrote:For someone of my beliefs, I used to find morality a difficult topic to get my head over. I am atheist as I find religion to lack credibility in the real world (not leaving to offend, but I am just starting MY beliefs); I believe the mind is our interpretation of chemicals and conditioning; but then morality comes. Then my dad introduced me to relativity which gave me a new opinion. In my culture, (Culture in England) we say 'boot'. In America, they say ' trunk'. By my standards, ' trunk' is when I'd probably object. This is a small example. Now imagine 'Randomsford', a fictitious town. In there, genocidal people are people children look up to and adults wish to be. Charitable and friendly people are either arrested or looked down upon.

According to us, this is very bad. The citizens of 'Randomsford', have never known anything else. They believe that the rest of the world is wrong. Some terrorist groups have a similar outlook on society. Through this, can you really blame those terrorist groups? All they know are the things that they have been conditioned to do. They are like Pavlov's dogs. Just conditioned to respond to one thing as bad and the other as good. This is why morality does not exist, in my opinion. What do you think?

I think that if you mean "blame" philosophically then perhaps you have a point. However here in the Real World, there is a thing called social conformity. A terrorist violates that (by definition) so yes, I feel perfectly comfortable "blaming" the terrorist from Randomsford for their behavior here in Real Life.

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » July 28th, 2016, 1:27 pm

TigerNinja wrote:

Now imagine 'Randomsford', a fictitious town. In there, genocidal people are people children look up to and adults wish to be. Charitable and friendly people are either arrested or looked down upon.

Hi TigerNinja. You are right to use the term 'morality' to pertain to some society that most of us would consider to have immoral beliefs and practices. Morality pertains to Randomsford because Randomsford owns its way of evaluating the people's behaviour. A way of evaluating behaviour which is held in common is what a moral system is , and without it an aggregate of people would not be a society.

However, I doubt very much if Randomsford's people would survive for long without some positive evaluation of cooperative behaviours aimed at promoting the continuing life of at least an elite group of Randomsford's individuals.

If the Randomsford people are genocidal towards foreigners but not to Randomsford's own people then their moral system is aggressively tribal. The tribal mentality is caused by fear of people who are differrent in some way which seems threatening. You are right to mention religion because all the great modern religions urge universality and universal cooperation instead of narrow tribalism. When some great world religion seems not to be universally orientated this is because the religion has been politicised.

TigerNinja · Post by **TigerNinja** » July 29th, 2016, 5:01 am

LuckyR wrote:
TigerNinja wrote:For someone of my beliefs, I used to find morality a difficult topic to get my head over. I am atheist as I find religion to lack credibility in the real world (not leaving to offend, but I am just starting MY beliefs); I believe the mind is our interpretation of chemicals and conditioning; but then morality comes. Then my dad introduced me to relativity which gave me a new opinion. In my culture, (Culture in England) we say 'boot'. In America, they say ' trunk'. By my standards, ' trunk' is when I'd probably object. This is a small example. Now imagine 'Randomsford', a fictitious town. In there, genocidal people are people children look up to and adults wish to be. Charitable and friendly people are either arrested or looked down upon.

According to us, this is very bad. The citizens of 'Randomsford', have never known anything else. They believe that the rest of the world is wrong. Some terrorist groups have a similar outlook on society. Through this, can you really blame those terrorist groups? All they know are the things that they have been conditioned to do. They are like Pavlov's dogs. Just conditioned to respond to one thing as bad and the other as good. This is why morality does not exist, in my opinion. What do you think?
I think that if you mean "blame" philosophically then perhaps you have a point. However here in the Real World, there is a thing called social conformity. A terrorist violates that (by definition) so yes, I feel perfectly comfortable "blaming" the terrorist from Randomsford for their behavior here in Real Life.

I understand but social conformity still relies on a certain society. Morality and ethics are usually seen as worldwide by one person who has been raised to conform to a specific society's rules. They they are not worldwide, countering the widespread view of ethics completely.

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » July 29th, 2016, 2:26 pm

TigerNinja wrote:

I understand but social conformity still relies on a certain society. Morality and ethics are usually seen as worldwide by one person who has been raised to conform to a specific society's rules. They they are not worldwide, countering the widespread view of ethics completely.

It's true that morality is culturally relative. However cultural relativity doesn't prove that there is no objective good or bad, only that this world has never revealed a proven demonstration of objective good or bad.

Post by **LuckyR** » July 29th, 2016, 4:57 pm

TigerNinja wrote:
LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

I think that if you mean "blame" philosophically then perhaps you have a point. However here in the Real World, there is a thing called social conformity. A terrorist violates that (by definition) so yes, I feel perfectly comfortable "blaming" the terrorist from Randomsford for their behavior here in Real Life.
I understand but social conformity still relies on a certain society. Morality and ethics are usually seen as worldwide by one person who has been raised to conform to a specific society's rules. They they are not worldwide, countering the widespread view of ethics completely.

No, usually not. No one should expect morality to be universal (or worldwide in your nomenclature). OTOH ethics are, by definition societally based and so the difference between Randomsford and Real Life would dictate different sets of ethics, HOWEVER most observers use their own set of ethics to judge others, even others the observer knows conform to a different ethical code.

TigerNinja · Post by **TigerNinja** » July 30th, 2016, 3:54 am

LuckyR wrote:
TigerNinja wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

I understand but social conformity still relies on a certain society. Morality and ethics are usually seen as worldwide by one person who has been raised to conform to a specific society's rules. They they are not worldwide, countering the widespread view of ethics completely.
No, usually not. No one should expect morality to be universal (or worldwide in your nomenclature). OTOH ethics are, by definition societally based and so the difference between Randomsford and Real Life would dictate different sets of ethics, HOWEVER most observers use their own set of ethics to judge others, even others the observer knows conform to a different ethical code.

But yet a large majority of humankind do. They see that their rules are the best and prioritise them, which humans are bound to do. After all, we are only human.

TigerNinja · Post by **TigerNinja** » July 30th, 2016, 3:57 am

Indistinctthinker wrote:
TigerNinja wrote:For someone of my beliefs, I used to find morality a difficult topic to get my head over. I am atheist as I find religion to lack credibility in the real world (not leaving to offend, but I am just starting MY beliefs); I believe the mind is our interpretation of chemicals and conditioning; but then morality comes. Then my dad introduced me to relativity which gave me a new opinion. In my culture, (Culture in England) we say 'boot'. In America, they say ' trunk'. By my standards, ' trunk' is when I'd probably object. This is a small example. Now imagine 'Randomsford', a fictitious town. In there, genocidal people are people children look up to and adults wish to be. Charitable and friendly people are either arrested or looked down upon.

According to us, this is very bad. The citizens of 'Randomsford', have never known anything else. They believe that the rest of the world is wrong. Some terrorist groups have a similar outlook on society. Through this, can you really blame those terrorist groups? All they know are the things that they have been conditioned to do. They are like Pavlov's dogs. Just conditioned to respond to one thing as bad and the other as good. This is why morality does not exist, in my opinion. What do you think?
This doesn't prove the non-existence of morality, but the subjective nature of morality.

True but if people attempt to universalize their subjective morality, then that specific case of universalization is incorrect. Many humans universalize their rules.

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » July 30th, 2016, 4:26 am

TigerNinja wrote:

True but if people attempt to universalize their subjective morality, then that specific case of universalization is incorrect. Many humans universalize their rules.

Quite a few humans revise their moral codes within which they have been socialised as kids. Some of those revisionists become criminals such as young people who have been seduced into ISIS. Others get main stream education which might reveal to them one or two perfectly legal moral codes which are more appealing than that within which they have been reared.

Conscience often dictates to us that it is terribly wrong to abandon some moral code or some belief system within which we have been reared. It's the main duty of philosophers to work out what is right and what is wrong.

Alec Smart · Post by **Alec Smart** » July 30th, 2016, 5:43 am

TigerNinja wrote: friendly people are either arrested or looked down upon.

I'm not sure a town, where the ideal quality you look for in your neighbours is hostility, would function very successfully.

TigerNinja · Post by **TigerNinja** » July 30th, 2016, 7:42 am

Alec Smart wrote:
TigerNinja wrote: friendly people are either arrested or looked down upon.
I'm not sure a town, where the ideal quality you look for in your neighbours is hostility, would function very successfully.

It's fictitious for example purposes. It's functionality is irrelevant.

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » July 30th, 2016, 8:28 am

TigerNinja wrote:

Code: Select all

It's fictitious for example purposes. It's functionality is irrelevant.

There is no question but that your fiction is a perfectly good way to pose a philosophical problem. It adds to the disclosure of a problem when the problem is graphically described, as you did.
Your fiction is interesting as a thought experiment . Thought experiments are a quite common way to do philsophy.

As a thought experiment the function of the idea does matter quite a lot. If the moral code doesn't work it's interesting to see why it doesn't work.

Wilson · Post by **Wilson** » August 1st, 2016, 7:33 pm

All depends on your definition of morality. If you define it to mean a universal measure of right and wrong, then indeed there is no such thing. However, most of us (or perhaps almost all) have a clear sense of right and wrong. To me that is what morality is. In other words, I believe that morality is individual and is not exactly the same from one person to another. But in any society, most of its members agree in general about what's right and wrong. And the deep down basis for the morality of most of us is empathy, which is one of the personality traits evolution gave us, because it made cooperation possible - and that was because cooperation gave our species a better shot at survival.

So most of us have sympathy for our family members, and most of us have sympathy for community members outside our families, and the reach of that empathy may or may not extend to those of other nations, races, religions, and so on. And within a society or religion a consensus often emerges, and that consensus gets written down as rules of morality. Now one can define morality as those sets of rules. As I said, I prefer to think of morality as the individual's inner sense of right and wrong, because that is the basis for the systems of ethics and morality that result from the consensus individuals arrive at.

Post by **Sy Borg** » August 2nd, 2016, 12:13 am

Belinda wrote:... I doubt very much if Randomsford's people would survive for long without some positive evaluation of cooperative behaviours aimed at promoting the continuing life of at least an elite group of Randomsford's individuals.

If the Randomsford people are genocidal towards foreigners but not to Randomsford's own people then their moral system is aggressively tribal. The tribal mentality is caused by fear of people who are different in some way which seems threatening. You are right to mention religion because all the great modern religions urge universality and universal cooperation instead of narrow tribalism. When some great world religion seems not to be universally orientated this is because the religion has been politicised.

Belinda, I'm glad you said this; it strikes me as the key point . Groups that mindlessly brawl will not compete as well for survival as groups that forge alliances through cooperation.