GE Morton wrote: ↑June 9th, 2022, 10:49 amAh. Perhaps you can inform us of the "right" idea about morality.
Morality (like love) is eternal in nature and concerns a quest into 'good' which requires a
potential to do so.
It isn't the case that certain acts are not immoral for certain people or cultures but simply that a factor is missing that enables
moral consideration (an activity in the face of an unknown future) within a certain context. From that perspective, a barbarian can still be held accountable for a lower quality moral state compared with more civilized folks. Also,
killing an animal for food is always immoral. The perspective of the animal and it's natural environment is never lost but is merely
neglected by a human in a certain context.
Morality isn't about rules (ethics). Morality is about
the potential for moral consideration.
Only when the potential for moral consideration is present, someone can be considered
responsible in the face of his/her dignity.
Negligence, laziness and barbarianism are possible. An asteroid can strike earth.
A moral life is not a given life. A moral life involves an eternal effort on behalf of 'good'. A moral life, according many wise people, requires that one first gives before one receives (see the work of Emmanuel Levinas and his vision
Ethics as First Philosophy for an example).
When it is considered that 'good' necessarily
precedes human nature, which many profound philosophers have shown, it is possible to overcome the hurdle of subjective laziness and drive people principally to consider the good of others and beyond. In such a situation, moral consideration would become a quality that can be demanded in the face of dignity. This implies that the crafting of a moral culture is possible and a cultural demand can be a very strong demand. Humans would transform almost automatically into ever improving moral beings.
An example that the moral culture theory might be valid is a quote by
Henry David Thoreau:
"
Whatever my own practice may be, I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual moral improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with the more civilized."
Morality is about serving the purpose of life - good - in the best (wisest) way. When humanity is to secure its future and to achieve an optimal path, it would be case that humanity is set to enhance its moral consideration potential with everlasting urgency to be certain that whatever path it has chosen, has been given the right chance to have been the right path.
The problem at hand is not an answer to morality, but an answer to
the potential required for moral consideration. (what is required to create a moral culture)
The trend in leadership today is a focus on authenticity and a moral compass. The number one business book of recent years, by an author that is considered the new father of leadership, is named 'True North' and is about a moral compass.
I recently listened to a podcast with as guest Lisa Monaco, a former Counterterrorism Advisor of President Barack Obama. She specifically addresses the significance of a sound moral compass and hints that it might involve more than social and cultural instincts (
in the podcast she mentioned a 'sixth sense').
Podcast:
https://listennotes.com/podcasts/the-le ... li-5dvNUT/
It is interesting to notice that people who manage other people often seem to hold a special interest in morality. When one is to make choices on behalf of other people as part of an organization, morality is essentially what will determine quality in the choices that are made.
From this perspective, despite that the modern technological society intends to break free from morality (i.e. the idea "
A God is dead world in which science tells us our moral intuitions are simply a happenstance of evolutionary utility" that a user on this forum mentioned recently), there seems to be a solid ground and opportunity for morality to revive in the near future.
My suggestion would be to help secure interest for morality in a more robust sense beyond the scope of human ego. It wouldn't be just intended to be kind to other conscious beings, morality can be seen as a form of long-term intelligence that could help stave off disaster and secure progress in ways that could prove to be vital.
When a moral culture is set in motion, like a domino effect, it will prevent evil fundamentally and it will result in a foundation for intellectual progress.
GE Morton wrote: ↑June 9th, 2022, 10:49 am
What is being asked is actually whether or not humans should neglect morality or not, a morality which is ever present!
?? Are you suggesting morality has some sort of presence or existence independent of human beliefs, theories, and judgments?
Yes, morality concerns an
everlasting activity in the face of an unknown future on behalf of the aspect 'good' that
precedes human nature.
GE Morton wrote: ↑June 9th, 2022, 10:49 amThere can be no "quest into good," because "goodness" or "the good" is not something independent of persons which can be sought after and found. The term is simply an adjective one applies to something one finds pleasant, satisfying, desirable, and hence is subjective and idiosyncratic.
French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas, well known for his moral theoretical vision of
Ethics as First Philosophy and his work Totality and Infinity (1961) argued the following:
In shame, we experience our freedom as unjustifiable. In thus being as if lifted out of its concerns, the “I” offers an account to the other, who is thereby treated as if higher than that “I” when considered in its personal sovereignty. For that reason as well, the “I”, singled out and addressed by the other, is chosen or as if “elected” to respond (TI: 245–246, 279). It “transascends” (35, 41) or rises to the other, answering “here I am” (EI: 106).
Levinas argues that the instant of “election” belongs to a temporal order different from that of everyday existence: the moment of enactment of a “good beyond Being”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/levinas/
Emmanuel Levinas his work is similar of importance as that of German philosopher Martin Heidegger (Being and Time, 1927).
The moral philosophy of Levinas would imply that a face-to-face meeting involves a '
good beyond Being' which implies that that same good would
precede one's own subjective human nature.
Levinas commentator Giuseppe Lissa provides the following description of Levinas’ project Otherwise than Being (his latest work).
She says:
By investigating the depths of consciousness, by comparing its passivity to the process of ageing, Levinas investigates a "reality unknowable, but perhaps interpretable by a thinking that no longer claims to be an exercise in knowledge … because this thinking is engaged in the search for a meaning that precedes all knowledge."
In the film
Absent God (1:06:22) Levinas says the following:
"The creation of the world itself should get its meaning starting from goodness."
Conclusion: Levina's work concerns a 'good' that
precedes human nature and simple logic makes it apparent that by cultural engrained awareness of that fact, morality can be set on a path to everlasting moral enhancement for the purpose of 'ought' intellectual progress to secure the future of humanity.