Should Morals Be Judged In A Cultural Context?

[Belindi]

I am using the word normatively, If human nature is founded upon existential angst this is pessimistic about human nature. I am aware that many people connote pessimism with lazy cynicism or even a morbid habit of mind.

There is an annoying fashion for people to wear permanent grins. You see it most of the time on Facebook, toothy grins. It is fashionable to let the world know how happy and successful one is.

[Eduk]

I am using the word normatively,

I do however feel that Spectrum thinks that to call something or some person pessimistic is to denigrate. I feel that to be pessimistic is to be realistic.

Sorry unless I understood your meaning you are saying that being pessimistic is not a derogatory term? I am saying that the normative use of the word is a derogatory term? Are you disagreeing with my opinion that this is the normal use of the word?

[Belindi]

I don't know the stats for how people use the term in everyday language. I do know that in academia , in theories of history, the usage of 'pessimistic' and 'pessimism' relates to left wing interpretation of evidence , in which human nature is such that philanthropic initiatives have to be made into laws because you cannot expect most people to do philanthropy of their own initiative.

Spectrum is saying that fear of death makes for dissonance , and religion has coped so far to sort of allay that fear by promising justice and happiness in the sweet bye and bye. In a newer less regimented age when most people have put away supernatural beliefs we will need something to take the place of religions. because the angst will remain.

Institutionalised religion has been useful for rulers to keep the work force working instead if rebelling. Once institutionalised religion goes there has to be a more democratic less dictatorial ruling state, i.e. less righty more lefty.

[Felix]

Belindi: Pessimism is far better than optimism as a springboard to improvement.

News flash: Someone who believes improvement is achievable and attainable is called an optimist, not a pessimist.

Spectrum: To ensure the preservation-of-the-species drive is dominant in humans, the facts of mortality are somehow inhibited at the conscious level so that humans can function to meet the goals of reproducing the next generations.

The obvious facts of life cannot be consciously "inhibited" in sane human beings, who are self aware. The awareness of the eventuality of death can be and in fact is inhibited in animals by a lack of self awareness.

As I said before, rational people do not fear facts, they accept them. Your thesis is founded on a dim and derogatory view of the human species, you seem to believe they are by and large no more aware than other animals and therefore can be unconsciously manipulated like puppets by Death the Puppet Master.

[Belindi]

Felix wrote:

News flash: Someone who believes improvement is achievable and attainable is called an optimist, not a pessimist.

Yes. But I was talking about how the view of human nature is that most people need to be ruled preferably by consensus, and this fact of life is reality. An optimistic view of human nature is that people will be good altruistic citizens all by themselves with no reference to societal norms. The latter, optimistic, view is not realistic.

[Spectrum]

Spectrum. Just to be clear. You are proposing something like Maslow's hierarchy of needs needs to be re-drawn with a new category at the bottom under Physiological needs which would be titled something like (subconscious fear of death?) and then continues with the normal pyramid we are used to seeing?

What I am proposing can be complimented with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
It is not precisely 'subconscious fear of death' but rather a resulting cognitive dissonance [existential dilemma or crisis) which is a primal force pulsating from the basement of the human psyche that affect the upper layers of the pyramid, except the topmost which is in control with effective modulation of the base impulses.
Thus the normal Maslow's pyramid would be like something that is made of cheese with a lots of porous holes within that give way for the base impulses of the dissonance to reverberate/push through the top layers.

-- Updated Tue May 02, 2017 10:21 pm to add the following --

I'm not going to argue with Spectrum;Spectrum's idea is a good one. I do however feel that Spectrum thinks that to call something or some person pessimistic is to denigrate. I feel that to be pessimistic is to be realistic. Pessimism is far better than optimism as a springboard to improvement.

I may have missed your nuances of the word. My reference to 'pessimism' is the normative one [general or philosophical], i.e.

• Generally;
  a tendency to see the worst aspect of things or believe that the worst will happen; a lack of hope or confidence in the future.
  Philosophy:
  a belief that this world is as bad as it could be or that evil will ultimately prevail over good.

versus:

• Optimism:
  hopefulness and confidence about the future or the successful outcome of something.

I am aware Schopenhauer used the term 'pessimism' from another perspective in contrast to the religious' "optimism" there is an afterlife, eternal life and heaven. Schopenhauer's pessimism is specifically relative to the religionist's optimism.

My reference to 'pessimism' is the normal one.

-- Updated Tue May 02, 2017 10:47 pm to add the following --

@Felix

The obvious facts of life cannot be consciously "inhibited" in sane human beings, who are self aware. The awareness of the eventuality of death can be and in fact is inhibited in animals by a lack of self awareness.

As I said before, rational people do not fear facts, they accept them. Your thesis is founded on a dim and derogatory view of the human species, you seem to believe they are by and large no more aware than other animals and therefore can be unconsciously manipulated like puppets by Death the Puppet Master.

Your above views are too shallow.

If I were to put you in a situation where you are in great danger with a threat of death [90% possibility of death], how would you react? e.g. facing a hungry pack of lions with no where to run, or other serous life threatening situations.
You [an exception] may be able to rationalize away the real potential threat and 'accept' whatever the fate, but the fact is your basic instincts of fear and the related internal processes will kick in whether you like it or not.
As for the normal average they will not have time to rationalize and will be overwhelmed by fear of potential death instinctively to act spontaneously. This instinctive fear is evolved to evade death if possible. (for some it may paralyze them).

It is not derogatory to recognize that human beings has higher levels of self-awareness than any other animals, which is necessary for a higher level of complex approach to survival and living.
It is not derogatory to acknowledge that human are aware of their own mortality and non-humans do have have such capacity.

If you reflect deeply, it is the effects of that cognitive dissonance within you that lead to your choice of your above 'ugly' view.

-- Updated Tue May 02, 2017 10:50 pm to add the following --

Correction:
It is not derogatory to acknowledge that humans are aware of their own mortality and non-humans do [NOT] have have such capacity.

[Belindi]

Spectrum wrote:

I am aware Schopenhauer used the term 'pessimism' from another perspective in contrast to the religious' "optimism" there is an afterlife, eternal life and heaven. Schopenhauer's pessimism is specifically relative to the religionist's optimism.

Well, actually a book of Schopenhauer's essays is my kitchen table book for the past few weeks the cantankerous old thing--I like him!

[-1-]

I am using the word normatively

\What does this mean? What does "normative" mean?

[Eduk]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=normative

[Lark_Truth]

Question that I think might be pertaining to this conversation: Are true and wholesome morals things that society cannot determine?
The reason why I ask this is because say for instance God has set up the moral standards of humanity, and not to restrict us but to free us from the bad stuff and have as much happiness as possible. Those are what I would consider "true and wholesome" morals. One thing that I notice about a lot of morals is that they're healthy. Men and women who don't have sex outside of marriage don't get sexually-transmitted diseases. People who don't do pornography are actually smarter (it is scientifically proven). Not consuming drugs and alcohol merely for the effects that they give and only consuming certain ones for health benefits as those substances were intended is very healthy. Not cheating on your spouse most of the time keeps the relationship between husband and wife strong, and makes them and their children happy. In Christianity and a lot of other religions around the world those morals are taught (if not actually kept by the members of those religions) and I am seeing here a pattern. If divinity set the standards of morality, then society and its culture has no standing against it and therefore morals cannot be judged in a cultural context, but a religious one.

These are just my observations, views, and opinions. You don't have to agree with them, just debate them.

-- Updated May 3rd, 2017, 9:34 am to add the following --

I also notice that sometimes society and culture can get morality right. So there is at least hope.

[Eduk]

Are true and wholesome morals things that society cannot determine?

Sorry your wording is a little awkward (to me), do you mean 'are there morally correct things which society can't determine and can only be determined by God'?
Please stop me if that's not what you meant? You also seem to answer the question yourself, though not explicitly. But I get the impression you think there are morals which God provided which can't be provided by society? Again please correct me if I'm mis-representing you.

Could you give me one example (for the sake of brevity, hopefully your best example) of a moral good which can't be determined by society but only by God. Please provide your references too as there are many Gods (although I know you are a Mormon I don't know which Bible you believe, or which passages from the Bible you believe, or which interpretations of those passages you believe).

[Lark_Truth]

Sorry your wording is a little awkward (to me), do you mean 'are there morally correct things which society can't determine and can only be determined by God'?

Yes, I would go further to say that we as humans are designed to follow those morally correct things.

I get the impression you think there are morals which God provided which can't be provided by society? Again please correct me if I'm mis-representing you.

Thank you for your concern, Eduk. I think what I was trying to say that God has a perfect understanding of all things while society doesn't, which means to be morally correct you have to turn to the standards that God has given and not go with the flow of society. For example, the Victorian elite of British society were an awfully hypocritical bunch, and cared a lot about looking good in public, but behind closed doors they were pretty much immoral - at least the men and their mistresses were, I don't know for sure about the women.

Could you give me one example (for the sake of brevity, hopefully your best example) of a moral good which can't be determined by society but only by God. Please provide your references too as there are many Gods (although I know you are a Mormon I don't know which Bible you believe, or which passages from the Bible you believe, or which interpretations of those passages you believe).

English-speaking Mormons use the King James Version of the Bible, with a lot of footnotes that connect passages of scripture to other passages of similar reference.
I cannot say for sure what sort of moral good can't be determined by society and only by God. If I had to name one, I would have to say plural marriage. Whether or not that can be considered a "moral good" I don't know, it is just the best example I can think of. In the books of Chronicles and Kings in the Old Testament, it talks about King David and Solomon having a lot of wives, but yet it never mentions either king doing wrong in the sight of Jehovah except when David underwent the Bathsheba indecent and when Solomon started following the worships of his wives from Kingdoms outside Israel. In Genesis, it talks about some of the Kings of Canaan being sinful guys because they tried to take the Sarah and Rebecca (in their old age), yet the Bible never shows that Jehovah was critical of David and Solomon because of their large amounts of wives. Why?
Polygamy is one of the big rumors surrounding Mormons, even though it was stopped in 1889. The story behind Polygamy in the Mormon Church is that Joseph Smith Jr. was given the revelation of plural marriage and instructed to follow it. From what I believe, he was very very hesitant about doing something like that, even though polygamy was not banned in the U.S. until 1889, and Joseph Smith Jr. only began the practice of polygamy because he was met one day by an angel with a flaming sword and was told that he would practice the law of polygamy or he would die and be damned. Pretty persuasive. In the end, the Mormon Church did practice polygamy, I believe Joseph had like 30 wives (his first wife Emma didn't like it, eventually led her to break away from the Church after Joseph's death), but it wasn't very common, and in most cases the man only had two to five wives. There were a lot of problems, and there are several stories of the sister-wives getting along very well (amazing!). A lot of people did not understand why the Lord commanded polygamy to be practiced in the early church. Even today we don't know for certain. Some say it was a test to see how willing the Mormons were to follow God's commandments, and to see which ones were not strong in the faith, but I don't know how much of that is fact or theory.
My point is: Polygamy is something that we and society do not have a perfect understanding of. Somehow God does, and He knows how it should be and who should practice it.
Though, I don't think that I could ever practice plural marriage. One woman would be enough for me.

If this all is somehow offensive to you, I am sorry, I was just trying to answer your question. But does it answer yours? Please let me know.

[Eduk]

For example, the Victorian elite of British society were an awfully hypocritical bunch

Again I may be misrepresenting you But I think you are saying that morals shouldn't be socially determined, or at the very least such a moral system would have flaws? I personally would define religions as part of society, but for the example you are making it does make sense to separate religion from other societal norms. I guess in short you are saying just because a bunch of people all living together agree on some moral rules doesn't mean that they are right? I would agree with that, it's a well known fallacy called appeal to popularity. I think popularity often has some moral value but it's not a system and is often wrong. So if that's what you mean then I agree that society as whole can't correctly define morality.

Polygamy is something that we and society do not have a perfect understanding of. Somehow God does, and He knows how it should be and who should practice it.

I'm a little confused by your explanation. You are saying that God told you to practice Polygamy so therefore you know it to be moral. But that the church stopped that practice in 1889. Is not the church then immoral?

[Felix]

Spectrum: It is not derogatory to acknowledge that humans are aware of their own mortality

I said that, you said the opposite: that most people are not self aware enough to accept the reality of death. In other words, they are too neurotic to face the truth. That sure sounds like a derogatory view of human nature to me.

[Spectrum]

Spectrum: It is not derogatory to acknowledge that humans are aware of their own mortality

I said that, you said the opposite: that most people are not self aware enough to accept the reality of death. In other words, they are too neurotic to face the truth. That sure sounds like a derogatory view of human nature to me.

You also stated;

• "you seem to believe they are by and large no more aware than other animals"

I stated humans has enough and a much higher degree of self-consciousness than other animals to be aware of their physical mortality. Thus human can reason and support that with empirical evidence, i.e. no humans has lived more than 150 years.

But is also a fact that the majority of humans has the self-conscious ability to deny the fact of mortality and many [more than 70%] believe God will grant them eternal life in heaven, physically and spiritually. Some believe they will continue to live as other forms [higher or lower] of life.
Yes, these people [>70%] are denying and not facing the truth. This is very natural [optimal given the current constraints] and not neurotic in this sense. What is so derogatory in stating this fact.

It is a human nature the fact of mortality is suppressed by a inhibitors [neural] prevent such an awareness to surface and be active at the conscious level to affect normal living 99% of the time.
It is this point that lead the majority to believe in a God that will give them eternal life or other forms of resolving the dissonance.

So I did not state anything derogatory of humans, it is human nature itself that suppresses the truth of mortality and necessarily so for its purpose optimally within conditions in the time and circumstances.

However I believe it is about time humanity starts to be active to understand the root causes of the above problems and establish alternatives to religions [potentially net negative in the future] to deal with that inevitable unavoidable existential dissonance.