Prescriptive, descriptive, and motivated morality

[saizai]

One of the greatest real arguments for certain religions (and against all others, from their perspective) is that of morality. Namely, 98% of us agree that we want to live in a mutually just and pleasant society. One in which people treat each other well.

Prescriptive morality is still the dominant force, and probably the first. Somebody says that they know how people should act, from authority. People believe them. It plays out the way we have seen with fundamentalist religions of all kinds: it has some certain benefits (when the dictums are in fact good* ways to be ethical). It also has major drawbacks; I won't bother going into the details, since this has been discussed ad nauseam already.

Descriptive morality is where one simply says what people actually do. It is the thing that people who have religion will invariably have a problem with, because it gives no direction. It seems to say that everything is okay; people can do anything; chaos; etc. This isn't quite so, but nevertheless the problem is there.

The reason people really make moral decisions is because a balance of empathy. Trying to maximize the benefit for things with which they empathize, not particularly caring about ones with which they don't. This is true of both decisions we socially consider to be very ethical ones - e.g. self-sacrifice to save your family, a stranger, etc - and of ones we don't - e.g. neo-Nazism, which is essentially a matter of empathizing overwhelmingly with one's race and not with others'. The reduction of this empathy towards someone is proven to reduce decisions that benefit them. (Viz. Zimbardo etc.)

However, this doesn't give any directionality; doesn't give an answer to the valid theist's underlying question, namely: what should we do to ensure that society works well?

The answer, IMO, is to acknowledge the realities of descriptive morality that I refer to above, and apply them as teaching. If people act for the benefit of things and people with whom they empathize, to the possible detriment of others, then the answer is simple: intentionally teach people to feel empathy with populations and entities whom we socially want to be benefited.

It is unnecessary to teach anything else other than how to correctly understand the current situation of those entities, and how to predict the consequences of one's own actions with respect to them. Full morality will precipitate.

That simple. Hopefully the consequences are clear.

 

[Wolfman]

I agree 100%; the International Humanist and Ethical Union has a detailed statement in this regard, believing that moral and ethical beliefs are important, but that they can be reached through a rational process, not dictated by supposed gods. From their website:

The fundamentals of modern Humanism are as follows:

1. Humanism is ethical. It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others. Humanists have a duty of care to all of humanity including future generations. Humanists believe that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction.
2. Humanism is rational. It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively. Humanists believe that the solutions to the world's problems lie in human thought and action rather than divine intervention. Humanism advocates the application of the methods of science and free inquiry to the problems of human welfare. But Humanists also believe that the application of science and technology must be tempered by human values. Science gives us the means but human values must propose the ends.
3. Humanism supports democracy and human rights. Humanism aims at the fullest possible development of every human being. It holds that democracy and human development are matters of right. The principles of democracy and human rights can be applied to many human relationships and are not restricted to methods of government.
4. Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility. Humanism ventures to build a world on the idea of the free person responsible to society, and recognises our dependence on and responsibility for the natural world. Humanism is undogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents. It is thus committed to education free from indoctrination.
5. Humanism is a response to the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion. The world's major religions claim to be based on revelations fixed for all time, and many seek to impose their world-views on all of humanity. Humanism recognises that reliable knowledge of the world and ourselves arises through a continuing process. of observation, evaluation and revision.
6. Humanism values artistic creativity and imagination and recognises the transforming power of art. Humanism affirms the importance of literature, music, and the visual and performing arts for personal development and fulfilment.
7. Humanism is a lifestance aiming at the maximum possible fulfilment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living and offers an ethical and rational means of addressing the challenges of our times. Humanism can be a way of life for everyone everywhere.

 

[chriswl]

Descriptive morality is where one simply says what people actually do. It is the thing that people who have religion will invariably have a problem with, because it gives no direction. It seems to say that everything is okay; people can do anything; chaos; etc. This isn't quite so, but nevertheless the problem is there.

The reason people really make moral decisions is because a balance of empathy. Trying to maximize the benefit for things with which they empathize, not particularly caring about ones with which they don't. This is true of both decisions we socially consider to be very ethical ones - e.g. self-sacrifice to save your family, a stranger, etc - and of ones we don't - e.g. neo-Nazism, which is essentially a matter of empathizing overwhelmingly with one's race and not with others'. The reduction of this empathy towards someone is proven to reduce decisions that benefit them. (Viz. Zimbardo etc.)

The problem I have is how do you distinguish, in your descriptions, between ethical behaviour and other types of behaviour. If all behaviour counts as ethical behaviour then nothing is ever right or wrong and we can give no moral advice at all. Just do what you do - its ethical, by definition. Descriptive morality is then just (the entire field of) descriptive psychology.

We need a starting point, a definition of what ethical discourse actually is before we can start analysing it in human behaviour. Empathy clearly has a lot to do with it but I don't think it's the be all and end all.

The answer, IMO, is to acknowledge the realities of descriptive morality that I refer to above, and apply them as teaching. If people act for the benefit of things and people with whom they empathize, to the possible detriment of others, then the answer is simple: intentionally teach people to feel empathy with populations and entities whom we socially want to be benefited.

But singling out those particular populations and entities is also a moral choice. How do we decide that?

 

[Wolfman]

Chris,

I think my post regarding the principles of the IHEU attempts to answer some of your questions; would appreciate your comments on that, also.

 

[Beerina]

Objectivism also grounds freedom in a solidly secular basis, and capitalism as derivative from freedom. For this, Ayn Rand got a savaging from the religious right, which was most of the right back then.

It differs from the humanist manifesto above in that it does not attempt to swap god for some kind of service to other people as it's justification. (Note even the trumpeting of arts, presumably inserted to provide justification for government financing of same.) Under Objectivism, your right to life and freedom are based on you, not on service to others. Others may come and go, they may drive off cliffs based on their fantasies, but as long as they can't pick up a club and demand you drive off with them, you'll be ok.

One doesn't need a god to grant you rights or ethics of any kind. Note that this implies a question to the religious: Is what your god says, ethical, because he says it, or does he say it because it's ethical? Is there some other reason than "a being much smarter than we says so"? Is there a reason, even if it is so complex we cannot understand it (itself a dubious concept, but I'd allow it for the sake of argument)?

 

[l0rca]

I'm actually having an argument like this on another message board, sort of like the difference between descriptive and prescriptive morality.

http://forums.sohh.com/showthread.php?t=802789&page=6

You guys can't compete with my mad skills.

 

[chriswl]

Chris,

I think my post regarding the principles of the IHEU attempts to answer some of your questions; would appreciate your comments on that, also.

All it says about what morality is is that "morality is ...based on understanding and a concern for others". Does that really help us?

Suppose I were to say that I don't wish to be concerned for others. I will of course try to give the appearance of being concerned so as to better manipulate people to my advantage. Often this will involve actually acting in an unselfish way to maintain my cover. But where possible I will act completely selfishly in my own best interests and will perform no good deeds that do not stand some chance of being reciprocated or rewarded in some way.

What could you say to persuade me that I should instead have a genuine concern for others?

 

[saizai]

If all behaviour counts as ethical behaviour then nothing is ever right or wrong and we can give no moral advice at all. Just do what you do - its ethical, by definition. ... But singling out those particular populations and entities is also a moral choice. How do we decide that?

I disagree.

Everything you do, if you are comfortable with it, is 'moral' from your perspective (one hopes). There is no out-of-context 'moral advice'.

Choosing whom to empathize with is not a moral choice but a social one; it is an axiom behind morality, thus is morally neutral itself. (People how argue otherwise have already decided what the "proper" groups to empathize with are - which is circular.)

IMO however one should in principle try to empathize with / understand everything and everyone.

 

[saizai]

Suppose I were to say that I don't wish to be concerned for others. I will of course try to give the appearance of being concerned so as to better manipulate people to my advantage. Often this will involve actually acting in an unselfish way to maintain my cover. But where possible I will act completely selfishly in my own best interests and will perform no good deeds that do not stand some chance of being reciprocated or rewarded in some way.

What could you say to persuade me that I should instead have a genuine concern for others?

Not possible, and stupid to try through persuasion. I have never seen a case where that succeeded.

However, it is possible to try to give you experiences that are likely to increase your empathy. Have you live a day in the life, understand where someone sympathetic from the target group is coming from, etc.


Note however my original post said '98%'. 2% are the antisocial psychopaths like what you just described. I am not aware of any research that shows that they are convertible.

 

[Wolfman]

Chris,

For the atheist, I see only two real possibilities: either state that there is no standard for 'ethics' or 'morality' at all, as we cannot get everyone to agree on basic principles, and just believe that "whatever you think is right is moral"; or agree on certain basic principles, and use rational argumentation and education to promote those principles.

You do a great job at raising questions; but I haven't actually seen you present any better suggestions. I personally like the quote that, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others we've tried". I'd use a similar argument here; that while obviously not everyone will accept the basis for this model of morality, that it is still much better than having nothing at all.

And basing it on a standard such as "based on understanding and a concern for others" certainly doesn't seem to me to be a bad start. No, not everyone will accept it. But I think that those groups/societies who do accept it will, in the long term, do better than those who don't.

In conclusion -- its easy to just shoot down other ideas. Doesn't really take a lot of thought or effort. Its much more difficult to suggest possible ideas or solutions. You think this particular suggestion is flawed? Fine...I've got no problem with that. Just tell me what will work better.

 

[Dancing David]

Hmm, empathy means that people understand anothers position , so it might create a greater desire for justice. However i am not sure that is morality. Mores are the social normative behaviors for a given group.

I am afraid that people might be empathetic but still not feel there should be a level playing field. Knowledge is more likely to destroy prejudice, but not nessecarily.

 

[chriswl]

Chris,

For the atheist, I see only two real possibilities: either state that there is no standard for 'ethics' or 'morality' at all, as we cannot get everyone to agree on basic principles, and just believe that "whatever you think is right is moral"; or agree on certain basic principles, and use rational argumentation and education to promote those principles.

I think we probably should agree on some basic principles and promote them and that humanist declaration seems as good as any. But we shouldn't kid ourselves that we are simply arguing rationally (hopefully we are being rational but we are not just being rational). We aren't deriving these laws from first principles. We are promoting a viewpoint that we believe in and that (fortunately) many other people believe in too. But some people are going to just disagree with some of the assumptions behind these beliefs (see Beerina's post) and we can't use rational argument to prove them wrong.

I personally like the quote that, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others we've tried". I'd use a similar argument here; that while obviously not everyone will accept the basis for this model of morality, that it is still much better than having nothing at all.

Yes, I'd embrace it in that spirit too.

In conclusion -- its easy to just shoot down other ideas. Doesn't really take a lot of thought or effort. Its much more difficult to suggest possible ideas or solutions. You think this particular suggestion is flawed? Fine...I've got no problem with that. Just tell me what will work better.

I was just disagreeing with Saizai's point when he seemed to be saying that it was solely about empathy. I think empathy is very important and philosophers have tried to reduce morality to empathy in the past (Smith, I think). It's generally accepted that they were only partially sucessful.

Think of the idea of a just war. You don't want your soldiers to empathise too much with the enemy, do you? And what about someone who has made a promise and you tempt them to break it by playing on their empathy (oh go on, please, just for me...) Do we always want to give in to empathy?

 

[qayak]

Studies have demonstrated that, regardless of religious or cultural background, humans all seem to make the same decisions when faced with moral dilemmas. This would indicate that our morality is a product of our evolution and not our religious or cultural upbringing.

These studies would seem to contradict the claim that there is no "universal" morality. In fact, there is such a thing.

They also seem to support the idea that if you think something is morally right, you have a better than 90% chance of being correct.

Religion doesn't seem to be the moral beacon its supports claim it to be and it can be argued that religion has evolved to keep groups of people seperate through fear and misunderstanding when what we need in today's world is for people to see that humans have far more similarities than they do differences and that a far better society can be built on the similarities than can ever exist by focusing on the differences.

 

[Wolfman]

Well, I guess that here you come up against the question of what one means by "universal morality". Some use it to mean "a moral belief held in common by all humans". Some use it to mean "a moral belief held in common by all societies".

If we are looking for any moral belief or standard that would be accepted by all humans, we are just wasting our time. But, as qayak mentions, there do seem to be certain morals that, in the big picture, are consistently found across the full extent of human history, and the full span of human cultures.

Some of this, I believe, could be readily argued to be instinctive; we are, after all the products of the evolutionary processes that formed us, and for all that we are rational, thinking beings, we do not feel or reason entirely independently of those influences.

One of the most basic biological imperatives is to reproduce, to continue our bloodline, and/or our species. Thus, every society that has ever existed has basic moral beliefs centering on reproduction and children. There has never been a culture that taught that consumption of one's own children was a good and desirable trait (or, at least if there was, they would have quickly consumed themselves into extinction).

So, start from a basic point that "That which promotes the continued survival of the human race is 'good'". You won't get every human on the planet accepting that, but it does represent a form of "universal morality" in that every culture on the planet believes that in one form or another, and by far the majority of individuals will accept it.

Having established one "universal" rule (again, "universal" meaning common to all cultures, not meaning common to all individuals), you can move on to developing moral standards that are based on that foundation. Of course, there will never be universal agreement on what those moral standards are; but in this case, assuming an atheistic society that operated on the basic "universal moral standard" that whatever furthers the survival of the human race is "good", natural processes of social evolution will then come into play.

My argument here becomes hypothetical, but I believe it is nevertheless valid. Let us assume three atheist cultures or societies, with no belief in any god whatsoever. All three societies accept as a basic universal constant that the survival of humans as a species is a foundation of their moral codes and systems.

One of those three societies believes that, while survival of humans as a species is a moral constant, the survival of humans as a whole requires the elimination of other races. The second of these three societies believes that race is not an issue, but that a combination of aggressive eugenic and euthanasia programs to eliminate the 'weak' and encourage the 'strong' is the best way to ensure humanity's survival. The third of these three societies believes in essential human equality, that all humans are created equal, and have an equal right to life, freedom, etc.

In the short term, the first or second culture may gain some predominance. But over the long term, I don't think they would last, based on those systems. The first society would represent such a threat to the other two that they would almost inevitably become allies to defeat it. The second society would inevitably be subject to social discontent as a result of creating two different levels within society, which history has shown eventually leads to revolution.

For creating a truly strong, cohesive, lasting civilization, I think that the third course would finally prove the most viable. And thus, through a process of social evolution, would come to be accepted by the majority of people as a proper moral belief.

This is only one example (and an unfortunately rambling one). I believe that we can use a similar process to come up with other examples of "universal morality", and then build upon those in a similar fashion.

 

[qayak]

If we are looking for any moral belief or standard that would be accepted by all humans, we are just wasting our time.

But the studies have shown the standard is already there. We got it from our pre-human ancestors and it is in the vast majority of all people.

One of the most basic biological imperatives is to reproduce, to continue our bloodline, and/or our species. Thus, every society that has ever existed has basic moral beliefs centering on reproduction and children. There has never been a culture that taught that consumption of one's own children was a good and desirable trait (or, at least if there was, they would have quickly consumed themselves into extinction).

If we look at this from the base instead of each individual branch we see that when it comes to a choice between being good and being evil, being good has definite advantages in terms of survival. Forget about each individual case, just remember that in EVERY case we tend to do the right thing because it has evolved in us. (This is not exactly true but for the sake of simplicity we can look at it this way and then revisit this later.)

If we look at your idea of moral beliefs surrounding reproduction and children, there is no one correct way to reproduce or to raise children. Thus, cultural differences arise, but each way that is found in various cultures is good.

This is, in fact, what one would expect when simply making choices based on good or evil. When we look at cultural differences, it is not that one culture is good or one is evil, it is that both are good although one may be better than another. This is where the biases show up in moral discussions. Often the decision of what is better is based on what we are used to instead of whether something really is good or not.

I think this is what happens a lot when the subject of child rearing comes up. People believe that the way they were raised, or the way they raise their kids, is the best. Spanking is a perfect example. Some people claim it is bad, some say it is fine. If you look at the results of the two ways of raising kids, children from both systems turn out just fine. By the same token, if you take either system to an extreme, both turn out poorly adjusted children.

So, start from a basic point that "That which promotes the continued survival of the human race is 'good'". You won't get every human on the planet accepting that, but it does represent a form of "universal morality" in that every culture on the planet believes that in one form or another, and by far the majority of individuals will accept it.

I disagree. When it comes to matters of survival, all morality goes out the window. If a person is in an airplane crash in the Antarctic and has to eat passengers that did not survive the crash in order that they may survive themselves, their actions are 100% morally correct. If you routinely kill you neighbour's kids and B-B-Q them for dinner, you are immoral by any definition.

Having established one "universal" rule (again, "universal" meaning common to all cultures, not meaning common to all individuals), you can move on to developing moral standards that are based on that foundation. Of course, there will never be universal agreement on what those moral standards are;

The moral dilemma with the 5 kids on one track, the single kid on the other and you with the ability to throw the switch has been studied with all types of religions (atheists included) and cultures. People tend to make the same choices to a very high degree. That right there shows that there is, in fact, a universal morality among humans. We assume that a culture will try to find the best way to do something when really they will just find a good way that works in the culture. No one believes it is the only way but they often assume it is the best based on their own bias.

When a practice does not hurt others, or society, we should not care about its morality. When it does, we need to look at it and decide if there is a better way, a way that will be less harmful to others.

My argument here becomes hypothetical, but I believe it is nevertheless valid. Let us assume three atheist cultures or societies, with no belief in any god whatsoever. All three societies accept as a basic universal constant that the survival of humans as a species is a foundation of their moral codes and systems.

One of those three societies believes that, while survival of humans as a species is a moral constant, the survival of humans as a whole requires the elimination of other races. The second of these three societies believes that race is not an issue, but that a combination of aggressive eugenic and euthanasia programs to eliminate the 'weak' and encourage the 'strong' is the best way to ensure humanity's survival. The third of these three societies believes in essential human equality, that all humans are created equal, and have an equal right to life, freedom, etc.

In the short term, the first or second culture may gain some predominance. But over the long term, I don't think they would last, based on those systems. The first society would represent such a threat to the other two that they would almost inevitably become allies to defeat it. The second society would inevitably be subject to social discontent as a result of creating two different levels within society, which history has shown eventually leads to revolution.

For creating a truly strong, cohesive, lasting civilization, I think that the third course would finally prove the most viable. And thus, through a process of social evolution, would come to be accepted by the majority of people as a proper moral belief.

I disagree. I think you have mixed up morality with "types of government." All the people in all three societies would tend to give the same responses to the same moral dilemmas.

 

[chriswl]

My argument here becomes hypothetical, but I believe it is nevertheless valid. Let us assume three atheist cultures or societies, with no belief in any god whatsoever. All three societies accept as a basic universal constant that the survival of humans as a species is a foundation of their moral codes and systems.

One of those three societies believes that, while survival of humans as a species is a moral constant, the survival of humans as a whole requires the elimination of other races. The second of these three societies believes that race is not an issue, but that a combination of aggressive eugenic and euthanasia programs to eliminate the 'weak' and encourage the 'strong' is the best way to ensure humanity's survival. The third of these three societies believes in essential human equality, that all humans are created equal, and have an equal right to life, freedom, etc.

In the short term, the first or second culture may gain some predominance. But over the long term, I don't think they would last, based on those systems. The first society would represent such a threat to the other two that they would almost inevitably become allies to defeat it. The second society would inevitably be subject to social discontent as a result of creating two different levels within society, which history has shown eventually leads to revolution.

For creating a truly strong, cohesive, lasting civilization, I think that the third course would finally prove the most viable. And thus, through a process of social evolution, would come to be accepted by the majority of people as a proper moral belief.

But if circumstances were different then a different kind of society would prosper. For example, in the classical era, when human labour was the only physical power available, the institution of slavery was highly avantageous for a society. Who knows what kinds of social organisation may be most adaptive in the future given new technological developments.

Your point seems to be about the facts of the evolution of political and social norms over time rather than about what things are right or wrong. Surely the fact that we are sometimes able to step outside of the values of our own society and criticise them means that we have a sense of right and wrong that is to some extent independent of our culture?

People tend to make the same choices to a very high degree. That right there shows that there is, in fact, a universal morality among humans. We assume that a culture will try to find the best way to do something when really they will just find a good way that works in the culture. No one believes it is the only way but they often assume it is the best based on their own bias.

Perhaps saying that there is a universal morality is putting it a little strongly. Psychologists who have studied this talk of there being a common meta-ethics rather than a common ethical code as such. But yes, that seems plausible to me.

The question I still have is what exactly is the status of these ethics (or meta-ethics). They are not simply the rules we live by because we often break them, sometimes quite knowingly. In fact if we didn't break our own moral laws then the subject of morality would be a completely uninteresting one. We would all just blindly follow our hard-wired moral rules without giving them a second thought and emotions like guilt and shame just wouldn't exist.

Nor are morals the rules we agree on in common with our broader society - it is quite possible to have moral feelings that are at odds with the society you live in. Morals are what we feel we ought to do. But what does this really mean?

 

[Wolfman]

I disagree. When it comes to matters of survival, all morality goes out the window. If a person is in an airplane crash in the Antarctic and has to eat passengers that did not survive the crash in order that they may survive themselves, their actions are 100% morally correct. If you routinely kill you neighbour's kids and B-B-Q them for dinner, you are immoral by any definition.And I disagree with your argument, also

Survival of the genetic line generally trumps individual survival. Think of the parent who sacrifices their life to save that of their child. A variety of 'irrational' emotions (such as love, loyalty, etc.) also generally trumps individual survival. And while you can come up with examples of humans in certain extreme situations doing anything to stay alive, I can come up with examples of humans in extreme situations willingly going to their deaths.

I personally dislike arguments from extremes, from situations that very few people will have to face. Given an extreme enough situation, there is not any "moral" code for good or evil that humans won't break.

Your point seems to be about the facts of the evolution of political and social norms over time rather than about what things are right or wrong. Surely the fact that we are sometimes able to step outside of the values of our own society and criticise them means that we have a sense of right and wrong that is to some extent independent of our culture?

Actually, my point was more addressing the question of how does one get people to accept a particular form of morality, without the benefit of being able to claim any "universal truth" for that standard? My argument is that just as a species will generally physically evolve in a manner that best suits the continued survival of that species, so a society will generally evolve socially in a manner that likewise best suits the continued survival of that species.

We can see, throughout history, a clear line of 'evolution' in human societies. As technology improves, as standards of living increase, as economies improve, etc., there appears to be a corresponding evolution in a direction to focus more on issues like "human rights", "freedom", etc.

As regards having morality that is independent of our culture, I'd say that is partially true, and partially not true. If you're raised in a culture that is fighting for survival (this may be as a result of not enough food, of war with others, of disease, etc.), then you are not going to spend much time ruminating about "right" or "wrong". You focus on the basic needs -- I need to survive, I need shelter, I need food, I need clothes, etc.

The ability to question and challenge the moral values of one's culture would, I'd argue, be more of a "luxury". As a culture becomes more stable, as ones personal survival is no longer an immediate issue, and as people within that culture get more leisure, then you'll see a corresponding increase in those who question the values of their culture, certainly. But they won't be able to do so from a 'neutral' position, they'll inevitably still be influenced by the values they've been taught.

This is a hard discussion to respond to, because it is one that will inevitably tend to head in a lot of different directions. My core point focuses on the argument that, in the long term, standards of human morality, of what is "good" and "evil", what is "right" and "wrong", will develop as a result of a process of social evolution. That is, certain forms of moral codes will, over the long term, benefit societies more than others; and, through that process, will come to be accepted as the "norm".

Not because a god told them so. Not because there's any law written in the cosmic fabric of the universe telling them they must behave this way. Not because every human on the planet agrees with or accepts it. But simply because, over the long term, it has been proven to work.

And yes...as the situation changes and evolves, so will our morality.

 

[Wolfman]

I disagree. When it comes to matters of survival, all morality goes out the window. If a person is in an airplane crash in the Antarctic and has to eat passengers that did not survive the crash in order that they may survive themselves, their actions are 100% morally correct. If you routinely kill you neighbour's kids and B-B-Q them for dinner, you are immoral by any definition.

And I disagree with your argument, also

Survival of the genetic line generally trumps individual survival. Think of the parent who sacrifices their life to save that of their child. A variety of 'irrational' emotions (such as love, loyalty, etc.) also generally trumps individual survival. And while you can come up with examples of humans in certain extreme situations doing anything to stay alive, I can come up with examples of humans in extreme situations willingly going to their deaths.

I personally dislike arguments from extremes, from situations that very few people will have to face. Given an extreme enough situation, there is not any "moral" code for good or evil that humans won't break.

Your point seems to be about the facts of the evolution of political and social norms over time rather than about what things are right or wrong. Surely the fact that we are sometimes able to step outside of the values of our own society and criticise them means that we have a sense of right and wrong that is to some extent independent of our culture?

Actually, my point was more addressing the question of how does one get people to accept a particular form of morality, without the benefit of being able to claim any "universal truth" for that standard? My argument is that just as a species will generally physically evolve in a manner that best suits the continued survival of that species, so a society will generally evolve socially in a manner that likewise best suits the continued survival of that species.

We can see, throughout history, a clear line of 'evolution' in human societies. As technology improves, as standards of living increase, as economies improve, etc., there appears to be a corresponding evolution in a direction to focus more on issues like "human rights", "freedom", etc.

As regards having morality that is independent of our culture, I'd say that is partially true, and partially not true. If you're raised in a culture that is fighting for survival (this may be as a result of not enough food, of war with others, of disease, etc.), then you are not going to spend much time ruminating about "right" or "wrong". You focus on the basic needs -- I need to survive, I need shelter, I need food, I need clothes, etc.

The ability to question and challenge the moral values of one's culture would, I'd argue, be more of a "luxury". As a culture becomes more stable, as ones personal survival is no longer an immediate issue, and as people within that culture get more leisure, then you'll see a corresponding increase in those who question the values of their culture, certainly. But they won't be able to do so from a 'neutral' position, they'll inevitably still be influenced by the values they've been taught.

This is a hard discussion to respond to, because it is one that will inevitably tend to head in a lot of different directions. My core point focuses on the argument that, in the long term, standards of human morality, of what is "good" and "evil", what is "right" and "wrong", will develop as a result of a process of social evolution. That is, certain forms of moral codes will, over the long term, benefit societies more than others; and, through that process, will come to be accepted as the "norm".

Not because a god told them so. Not because there's any law written in the cosmic fabric of the universe telling them they must behave this way. Not because every human on the planet agrees with or accepts it. But simply because, over the long term, it has been proven to work.

And yes...as the situation changes and evolves, so will our morality.

 

[Ladewig]

It is unnecessary to teach anything else other than how to correctly understand the current situation of those entities, and how to predict the consequences of one's own actions with respect to them. Full morality will precipitate.

That simple. Hopefully the consequences are clear.

I disagree. Many people have the empathic abilities and come to diametrically-opposed position. Take physician-assisted suicide: people firmly against it and people firmly in favor of it both claim to be empathetic towards the people involved.

 

[Ladewig]

Studies have demonstrated that, regardless of religious or cultural background, humans all seem to make the same decisions when faced with moral dilemmas. This would indicate that our morality is a product of our evolution and not our religious or cultural upbringing.

These studies would seem to contradict the claim that there is no "universal" morality. In fact, there is such a thing.

Would you provide some citations in favor of that position?

In arguing against that position, I would be hard pressed to find a less scientific source than newspaper advice columns. That being said, these columns are filled with perennial questions such as "a married relative of mine is having an affair, should confront him, should I tell his wife, or should I ignore the situation" and "a friend and co-worker of mine is stealing from the company I work for, should confront her, should I tell our boss, or should I ignore the situation ." I have met (and read about) many people who come to very different solutions to these situations. That's why I have a hard time believing there is a "universal" or even a widely-accepted system of morality.