sometimes. . things need to be revisited. Philosophy is always interesting it is also good to see where they change over time Rocket River
Good post but that brings up the question of where do you draw the line between morals and ethics? From your post the line seems to be dependent on an outsider's POV who is also applying their own morality. For example consider the Southern States. The outsider's POV is that slavery wasn't a moral but an ethic that was done away with and the vast majority of Southerners don't consider now there was any moral basis to slavery. Prior to the Civil War though that wasn't the case and most Southerners firmly believed there was a moral basis to slavery and as such were willing to die for it. So then was slavery just an ethic since it became discredited or was it a moral since Southerners believed in it enough to fight for it? I think from the Southerners perspective it was very much a moral and one that many of them considered an objective moral.
Moral Relativism. And our descendants are going to look very poorly upon what we have done as a society as a whole. (They ate emotional, thinking species? They let entire countries starve and wane in illness and disease? They pillaged and scarred the land for oil and other resources, despite the presence of renewable resources?) slavery was the norm for how many centuries? on that note - old testament vs. the new testament I did like StupidMoniker's post for objectivity, but it seems to me that our understanding of the objective morality would be relative?
Not if 100 billion of them are scraping by on soylent green. We may be the good ol' days (relatively speaking)
I fancy (though not sure I believe it) a sort of evolutionary morality, which would end up somewhere between relativism and objectivism. The idea being that our moral sensibilities are the product of evolution honed to discourage anti-social behaviors that would hurt the tribe. Sins then are the result of the natural conflict between the interests of the group and the interests of the individual. It wouldn't be relative because it's innate in our genes and cannot be easily swayed by individual choice or cultural change. Sociological research sees that the biggies (like murder, arson, theft, whatever) are thought to be wrong across cultures with little variation. At the same time, it couldn't be said to be objective because there is no reason besides genetic advantage that it should be the way that it is. It only applies within the human condition, because we're the sort of animal we are. If our genetic stock no longer found advantage in it, it would go away. It's not True with a capital T.
Soylent Green? Well, that sounds like a product that is great for the environment! It even has green in the name...
No, I'm saying that we base morality on the emotion we feel after we commit an action. Because certain actions make us feel certain ways, we assume that there is some truth to the emotion that we feel in response to that action.
Moral behavior is not genetic, evolution is way too sporadic and random. The capacity of our brains to reason though is probably a genetic trait.But moral behavior and societal norms are accumulated knowledge; gathered, taught and learned. I always think of reasoning and intellect as trying to overcome instinct in evolving a more humanistic civilization of human animals.
I don't think so. I could characterize natural selection that way. But, you get evolution through a high volume of sustained averages. I would say our universal visceral abhorrence of homicide, to take a prominent example, is something too automatic to be the result of reason. We can go on to apply reason to it, and say this case is okay because it was self-defense, or that one because it was war, or what have you. But, the default position is that it's wrong until you argue to yourself that it's right.
We kill in war and in self-defense pretty much automatically. Soliders kill on reflexes and instinct. The two layer morality simply doesn't exist in battlefield. None in that siutation will feel it is wrong to kill and then justify the killing by argue to him/her-self that it's right. You may have some soliders feel remorse after the killing but there are plenty others don't feel that way at all. This pretty much applies to any killing that is legitimized, i.e. we don't feel wrong to kill in the first place.
We can philosophize about this until the cows come home. Here's an example of how it plays out. Moral Objectivism: Slavery is awesome. What great, cheap labor from these non-people! Moral Relativism: Wait a minute. No, it isn't.
There has never been a "good old days." Every generation is farther along with regard to morality and ethics than the one before it.
The projection was in to the future, it's quality and state of life are yet to be determined. It is possible that the exploitation of animals and resources will be considered the lesser moral conflict than say herding selected people into boiling pots to sustain others. (see the determination is relative) People from the Dark Ages would rightly consider the Hellenistic Period good 'ol days. White middle class people might consider the Post-war period the good 'ol days...for them.
Progress toward treating all people (and even animals) with more dignity than the last, and too toward equality for all people. I recognize there may be exception generations where we backslid, but it's not for nothing that there's not much of a market for African American time-travel stories. For American blacks, at least, the "good old days" were anything but.
I don't think that's the way to look at it. When people are trying to kill you, you usually don't have the luxury of reflecting on the morality of your actions.
I think there is an 'objective morality' - as in, a morality that with all things considered is the ultimate right way to live. However, while I think we're doing our best to figure it out, we don't have all the answers. So our understanding of objective morality is rather subjective. Also, I have friends who tell me that since I believe in objective morality that I must therefore admit that I believe there is a solid argument for God. This is a quote that resolves it for me: "If one argues, as many deeply religious individuals do, that without God there can be no ultimate right and wrong - namely that God determines for us what is right and wrong - one can then ask the questions: What if God decreed that rape and murder were morally acceptable? Would that make them so? While some might answer yes, I think most believers would say no, God would not make such a decree. But why not? Presumably because God would have some reason for not making such a decree. Again, presumably this is because reason suggests that rape and murder are not morally acceptable. But if God would have to appeal to reason, then why not eliminate the middleman entirely?" -Steven Pinker as paraphrased by Lawrence Krauss in "A Universe From Nothing" Anyways, that's my 2 cents on the topic.
