Do all humans have the same fundamental moral compass?

[WillJ]

I was reading an interesting article in the ambitiously titled Dictionary of the History of Ideas. It was on moral relativism, and it divided the position of the moral relativist into two claims: 1) that different people in different societies (and sometimes even in the same society) have different moral views and 2) there is no means by which one can claim one of these views is correct while the other incorrect.

What made the article interesting to me was that it went on to point out that A) even the first claim is debatable (I personally would have never thought to debate it), and B) that the second claim isn't as destructive of morality as some make it out to be, that subjective morals aren't meaningless morals. In order to maintain a good amount of focus, this thread shall focus on point A: the possibility that perhaps all humans ultimately have the same moral views. (Point B is for another thread.)

Consider, for example, human sacrifice. Modern industrialized societies don't like it. The Aztecs did. Obviously there's a big difference here, but is it a difference in morals? Most likely not; rather, it's a difference in fact: the Aztecs believed that if they did not regularly sacrifice someone, the gods would kill everyone. If any American were to believe this, he would most likely call for sacrifice as well; the religion is different, but not the ethic.

Abortion is another example. It's such a heated debate not because different people have different fundamental beliefs of how to treat women or whatnot, but rather because people either agree or disagree with the fact, right or wrong, that when a human sperm cell fertilizes a human egg, a true human is formed. No "pro-choice" person thinks killing humans is okay, a question of morals; the question is whether or not a fetus is a human, which is not a question of morals.

Ultimately, perhaps humans' morals aren't really in discord? After all, with the exception of a handful of psychopaths (who we can ignore for the sake of this thread), we certainly have all been biologically programmed to value human life in one way or another. To approach sex with some discretion. To balance our wants with the wants of others. To care for our children as if they were extensions of ourselves. All of these make evolutionary sense.

Are there actually ethical dilemmas that humans, perhaps with different sociological backgrounds, will have fundamental disagreements on? (And if so, how big are the differences?) The article actually mentioned a candidate: whether sacrificing one person for the good of more than one person is acceptable. People disagree on how to look at that, and it seems to me like that's a plain and clear difference---a fundamental difference---of morals. But maybe not?

Thoughts?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

CS Lewis once made that point. he said we no longer burned witches not because we think that it is okay to be a witch - if anyone deserves burning, it is them - but because we no longer identify people as witches. Same with the Aztecs; they thought that the world would end if they didn't keep the blood flowing, and several thousand deaths a year beat the end of all life.

In general I think that people more or less want to see what they hold as morally correct to prevail. In the case of abortion, "pro-choice" advocates either feel that a fetus is not human enough to deserve the right to live, or that the benefits of preserving the fetus' life are less than the drawbacks of restricting reproductive control. I think they are completely mistaken, but at least they are not really motivated just by a desire to kill babies. (well, usually . . .)

But we all have vastly different ideas of what is right and what is wrong.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, we certainly learn empathy and sympathy from our environments. I grew up on a farm, and was a lot less tender with animals than a city-born child often is.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I believe that there is only one fundamental moral compass, and all humans follow it to a greater or lesser extent. Much of it is set out here.

Well, we certainly learn empathy and sympathy from our environments. I grew up on a farm, and was a lot less tender with animals than a city-born child often is.

Oh, the memories!
My grandfather was a fisherman of the really old school, and where he grew up, the fishers had this creed:
"Be nice to animals. Fish are not animals."

The article actually mentioned a candidate: whether sacrificing one person for the good of more than one person is acceptable. People disagree on how to look at that, and it seems to me like that's a plain and clear difference---a fundamental difference---of morals. But maybe not?

Well, I think that while the act as a whole may be acceptable given some things (such as the size of the good), the act of sacrificing a person is, in itself, not good. So it's a question of what good takes precedence; for a classic example (and to invoke Godwin), when a Nazi officer comes along and asks you where the nearby Jews are, lying to him is still wrong, but it would be more wrong to show him where the Jews are.
Moral hierarchy, anyone?

 

[warpus]

No.

Isn't it obvious? If we all had the same fundamental moral compass we wouldn't have as many arguments about morality as we do.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Almost everyone thinks they act morally. But there are major disagreements on whether something is moral. Therefore, people's ideas of morality are different. QED.

 

[Masquerouge]

In order to maintain a good amount of focus, this thread shall focus on point A: the possibility that perhaps all humans ultimately have the same moral views. (Point B is for another thread.)

Consider, for example, human sacrifice. Modern industrialized societies don't like it. The Aztecs did. Obviously there's a big difference here, but is it a difference in morals? Most likely not; rather, it's a difference in fact: the Aztecs believed that if they did not regularly sacrifice someone, the gods would kill everyone. If any American were to believe this, he would most likely call for sacrifice as well; the religion is different, but not the ethic.

My opinion is that by saying the difference between different morals is a factual one, you effectively kill the discussion by simply renaming things.

To me, the difference between a murdered and a non-murderer is not a factual one. Even if the murderer acted in self-defense, some people think killing is wrong no matter what and would not have killed in self-defense.
You said we have been programmed to value human life one way or another. Well I think civilization had done a lot of reprogramming. Look at slavery for instance: is slavery moral? This is an issue that has been widespread all over the world, that has been endorsed by religions and great thinkers, that also has been fought the world over. To me this is an issue where there is no common moral ground across the world.

 

[Ayatollah So]

I think there are pretty deep-rooted individual differences in moral compass, and that probably most of the differences between societies consists in the relative number of individuals who subscribe to one or another viewpoint. Not that I think it's all genetic. Rather, that cultures emphasize one dimension or another of moral sensibility at the expense of others, while individuals also differ in the weight they tend to give to some basic tendencies that almost everyone shares.

Group-think and obedience to authority can be considered together as one important axis of difference, for example. This tendency combines a moral need for social order with a survival instinct bred in alpha-male-dominated primate tribes. People who are at the high end of this scale would tend to have no problem with slavery, I think, unless it is widely rejected around them.

Beyond saying that some differences are "pretty deep-rooted" I don't think I can answer your question because I think it presupposes too much of a fact/value distinction. I don't think you can draw a dichotomous line, even in principle, between factual beliefs and moral beliefs.

 

[Pyrite]

Sort of. Most people tend to have different definitions of what they feel is wrong and such. Most people wouldn't cause undue suffering to another person for no reason, but they're fine doing it to animals. It's simply because they view animals as a lesser form of life and not deserving respect or kind treatment. Similarly, a lot of rich people view poor people as a sort of sub-human creature that in a way deserves his/her lot in life. When people get hurt or oppressed by a being more powerful then they are, the justification is usually that they are subhuman, or deserving of this oppression.

It's like how I can easily steal from corporations that I hate just for the fun of it, and most people think that stealing is wrong. And adultery is considered wrong to a large amount of people, because someone is hurt in the process. Remove the hurt, and you remove the crime! Free love!

 

[ffman]

CS Lewis once made that point. he said we no longer burned witches not because we think that it is okay to be a witch - if anyone deserves burning, it is them - but because we no longer identify people as witches. Same with the Aztecs; they thought that the world would end if they didn't keep the blood flowing, and several thousand deaths a year beat the end of all life.

In general I think that people more or less want to see what they hold as morally correct to prevail. In the case of abortion, "pro-choice" advocates either feel that a fetus is not human enough to deserve the right to live, or that the benefits of preserving the fetus' life are less than the drawbacks of restricting reproductive control. I think they are completely mistaken, but at least they are not really motivated just by a desire to kill babies. (well, usually . . .)

But we all have vastly different ideas of what is right and what is wrong.

About Lewis, are you referring to 'Mere Christianity'? That's what I thought of when I read the topic.

 

[Pyrite]

"when a Nazi officer comes along and asks you where the nearby Jews are, lying to him is still wrong"

Why is it wrong?

 

[Stylesjl]

I beleive people do, but when people do nasty or brutal things it usually because this compass is ignored or clouded by other factors (Groupthinking, beleives of sub-humaness, ideology, heat of the moment, etc) usually when these factors are removed people seem to return to normal and actually begin to regret their actions

 

[Masquerouge]

I beleive people do, but when people do nasty or brutal things it usually because this compass is ignored or clouded by other factors (Groupthinking, beleives of sub-humaness, ideology, heat of the moment, etc) usually when these factors are removed people seem to return to normal and actually begin to regret their actions

I'm not so sure. I don't think the entire antique world would regret slavery.

And if people have changed today, this means that morals can evolve, and hence are not absolute or common.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

There are some differences in the "moral compass" but usually conflicts of morality are based on hypocracy.

For instance nobody thinks it is right for someone to kill or harm them but some people do not feel it is wrong the kill or harm others.
Nobody wants to be stolen from but some people have no qualms with stealing.
Nobody likes to have anothers will imposed on them but people often like to impose their will on others.

There is also some moral disagreement when it comes to "the end justifies the means." People have different ideas as to the point when this becomes true.

 

[Arcades057]

This is why I detest arguing with people of the liberal persuasion. When I argue a point, I do it from a standpoint of fact and thoughts; the majority of libs argue from feeling. If they don't "feel" something is right, then it's "morally wrong." If you debate anything regarding race or any religion besides Christianty (they love to trash Christianity and Catholisim, these libs of mine) they label you ignorant and start crying.

Everyone has a moral compass and every culture has their North set in a different direction. Note the societies that appreciate life and you will see enlightenment; mark those who worship only death and you will see God's fools and Man's foes.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

About Lewis, are you referring to 'Mere Christianity'? That's what I thought of when I read the topic.

I think the quote is from Mere Christianity, but I haven't read it in a while so I am not sure. It was in The Abolition of Man, or more specifically the appendix (which he titled Illustrations of the Tao) where he used a lot of quotes from a lot of different sources to show that most cultures had a lot of the same basic principles, regardless of individual differences. This idea is far more accepted now than it was when he wrote the book.

 

[Shaihulud]

Fundamental morality may simply be an ability to empathise with your fellow human, therefore All moral actions arises from empathy, the more complex the reasoning, the more morally deviant the action may take, but funfdamentally, it is all the same.

 

[classical_hero]

No.

Isn't it obvious? If we all had the same fundamental moral compass we wouldn't have as many arguments about morality as we do.

Off topic would not be the same if we had the same moral beliefs. Clearly we do not.

 

[Phlegmak]

This is why I detest arguing with people of the liberal persuasion. When I argue a point, I do it from a standpoint of fact and thoughts; the majority of libs argue from feeling. If they don't "feel" something is right, then it's "morally wrong." If you debate anything regarding race or any religion besides Christianty (they love to trash Christianity and Catholisim, these libs of mine) they label you ignorant and start crying.

Everyone has a moral compass and every culture has their North set in a different direction. Note the societies that appreciate life and you will see enlightenment; mark those who worship only death and you will see God's fools and Man's foes.

Worship death? At first I thought you meant satanists, but they don't worship death. Could you mean death metal and black metal fans? The Church of Euthanasia?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

"when a Nazi officer comes along and asks you where the nearby Jews are, lying to him is still wrong"

Why is it wrong?

Because lying is wrong, and that doesn't magically change when you have a good reason for it. If you're asking why lying is wrong to begin with, I'm not interested in debating with you. See thread "Should the government regulate sex/drugs?" for background. Or are you asking why comitting lying is wrong for the reason that it's an action while telling the truth and letting the Jews be killed is passive? Not sure what the term is for my views on responsibility there is; I'll check it out.

This is why I detest arguing with people of the liberal persuasion. When I argue a point, I do it from a standpoint of fact and thoughts; the majority of libs argue from feeling. If they don't "feel" something is right, then it's "morally wrong."

Double that for conservatives, who "feel" that homosexuality is wrong and that sex toys should be illegal. Ding ding ding, we have an obnoxious stereotype.