@everyone in general: I'm convinced that there's no way all of humanity has the same moral compass, no matter how "fundamental" or "un-factual" we get.
So now the question is, just how heterogenous are we? I guess that's a rather rediculously fuzzy question, though.
Erik Mesoy said:
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?
Well, you're right, but we certainly differ in how we rank things.
warpus said:
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.
Well, did you read the OP?
jalapeno_dude said:
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.
See above.
Masquerouge said:
My opinion is that by saying the difference between different morals is a factual one, you effectively kill the discussion by simply renaming things.
You could have a point there. I don't think I was simply renaming things in the OP, though---but there's that potential.
Masquerouge said:
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.
Is that coming out of the abortion issue? Well, I probably shouldn't be using the word "factual." The label of human is not a "fact." It is philosophical; the question is whether it's ethical. I'd say it's not, but I guess that's up for debate.
Masquerouge said:
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.
I'll have to think about that...
Ayatollah So said:
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.
Interesting thought. What would you say actually causes slavery to be accepted or rejected in the first place, though? Just the inherent breadth of empathy of the leaders of the tribe?
Ayatollah So said:
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.
Yes, I suppose you're right.
Arcades057 said:
When a conservative (like me) feels that homosexuality is wrong, we do so because it IS wrong. At least if you look at things in the respect of nature. Animals, and we humans are animals of a sort, procreate to reproduce (yeah, it's fun too, but the reason why we are genetically coded to do it is for reproduction). When two men, or two women, do that, they are not doing it to reproduce. That's why I disagree with it on principal.
But personally, if it works for you, work it.
Let's keep the gayness level of this thread to a minimum.
Truronian said:
I was reading a very interesting article in the Sunday Times magazine earlier. I'd scan it in, but I'm unsure of the legality of such things.
Basically the article was about the neuroscience of morality. Investigations into this arose after a number of cases where brain problems had caused a noticable shift in "morality". For example:
The article suggests that immoral acts are the result of brain abnormailties (be it permanent such as a tumour or temporary such as the chemical effects from drugs), and in the future we may be able to cure such immorality (or as te magazine puts it, we could have a cure for crime. On suggested program was to put zinc into the water supply to reduce criminality (Zinc was found to reduce reoffending rates in a British prison). The article also suggests that philanthropy is also the result of an atypical brain, kind of the opposite of crime.
The origin of morality is said to come form the desire to survive (a theory that makes a lot of sense IMO), they are a by-product of evolution. Actions that are advantagous to the survival of the individual and humankind are labelled as good (eg. generosity and helping others) while those that are detrimental to our survival (eg. murder, rape, pedophillia) are not. Religion has had the effect of skewing the moral system, although the basis of belief is the same (we want to survive, God could stop this). The moral system is also subject to change; different generations will live in different conditions and as such different actions will be optimal for survival.
I think the article on the whole makes a lot of sense, and the idea that criminal behavoir could be cured is very utopian (which in turn makes me a bit wary).
As for the OP's question, I'd say we all have the same basis for morality although the specific actions we consider moral are obviously not the same. Otherwise OT would be very dull...
Ah yes, let's bring some neurology into this debate! Is there anyway I could see the article? Without you getting sued, of course.
Eran of Arcadia said:
Ewww . . .
Anyways, I cannot see religion as skewing the moral system. If it is not God-given (in which case it would be moral anyways) then it was developed by humans as another code or means by which to survive in a group, and can't be any more "unnatural" than a secular moral code that encourages obedience to the leader (who thus, with a monopoly on force, can enforce order and redistribute resources efficiently).
Even as an atheist I have to agree.
Truronian said:
Well, at the time of the religions founding the codes that encompassed that religion were probably the morals of that day, aka the actions that would aid survival. Religion skews the moral system in that it applies the laws of a by-gone age to the current day. Or of course, they could just be the ramblings of a madman that through chance have been taken out of context (ala Scientology). It all depends on whther you view morality as timeless or changing.
Well, secular morality can be preserved just as well. People still respect Kant, Hume, etc. ("Not that there's anything wrong with that.")
ChrTh said:
I think we do share a base moral compass, but one that is so out of whack with modern society that tension inevitably results. We're still hardwired for a survivalist pro-evolutionary existence; 'enlightenment' doesn't exist in the animal kingdom (except dogs, but that's another topic). Capitalism is more successful than Communism because it's actually greater in line with our moral compass despite the fact that in all honesty Communism (in its original Marxist form) would be most beneficial to society.
I'd have to say the failings of communism cover much more than ethics and "human nature," but let's not get into an economics discussion here. As for your point in general, I'm not sure. I think our animalian hard-wiring does us just as much good as bad.
