The idea of morality

[Sholes]

I'm not sure this would necessarily fit as an "issue", but it's something I've been thinking about a lot lately; is morality something that is real, or is it a construct? I think morality is greatly influenced by the society we grow up in and the influences we are surrounded by, but is it something that is real? Is there such thing as right and wrong? I'm not sure this is the right place to post this, but I think it would be interesting to see this topic brought up: for example, most western countries have come to the conclusion that the female genital mutilation taking place in other countries is wrong, but many people that live where it is taking place argue that it's a cultural thing and that it isn't wrong at all. the same issue comes up with the criminalization of homosexuality in non-western countries. It was once considered "wrong" by most of the world, (As far as I know, anyways) but is now being more and more accepted, while some places still criminalize it. I don't believe in policing cultures that I am not involved in, but I also don't believe anyone should be punished over their sexuality, or be mutilated just because it is culturally accepted/expected. I'm curious what people think about morality and if it is a construct and doesn't really exist, or if it is culturally informed, or if it is or should be a universally consistent idea.

[Trotterdam]

Mostly, issues ask you about individual things and whether you believe they are moral or not, one by one. It would in principle be possible to make an issue about something your own nation disapproves of happening in another nation (or something your own nation approves of being banned in another nation), and asking whether you should intervene, or allow the other nation to decide their own policies. Abstract philosophy doesn't really have a place in NationStates issues - it's all well and good to contemplate the true nature of things, but what are you going to do about it?

Many religious people would claim that there is One True Morality imposed by God, and that change in human moral attitudes is merely us correcting our previous misconceptions of God's divine will. Atheists and other not-very-religious people, though, would dispute this, and still feel strongly about some sort of moral code despite no higher authority handing it down.

More pragmatic people would argue for moral behavior, not so much because it's "right", but because a society where anyone can abuse anyone else without restriction would be horribly dysfunctional and rapidly collapse. Even if you don't actually believe there's anything morally wrong with the collapse of human civilization, it would probably be bad for you personally, so you have an interest in preventing it. A set of mutually-agreed standards helps society to function smoothly.

On moral relativism, one thing I'd note is that while cultures have varied quite a bit in what moral standards they believed in, on thing that pretty much every culture has in common is that they believe in some kind of moral standards. So "morality is arbitrary" isn't a good ground for ditching it altogether.

[New Technocratic Prussia]

I would write a full response, however I am sleepy and must get up early in the morning.

Thoughts on the Nietzschean and Stirnerite perspective that morality is somewhat of a religious pathology?

[USS Monitor]

Wrong forum, and the topic is a bit broad, but I'll give it a shot in NSG rather than lock.

[Conserative Morality]

Non-Western countries tended to be much less hostile to homosexuality than modern Western countries were until fairly recently. Many such standards are the result of colonial imposition of Christian European standards of morality and law upon their subjects.

Anyway, morality is a construct. Doesn't make it less worthwhile, but you can't run to it as a shield against criticism.

[The New California Republic]

There are no moral phenomena as such, only a moral interpretation of phenomena. If morality is intrinsic to an act or object as part of it without our input at all —as some may assert— then where is it? Is it hovering around it as some kind of aura? Is it extruded as a gas?

[Page]

I'm a moral relativist philosophically speaking, insofar as I do not believe in any sort of god or ultimate order, and that on a universal scale, we are all merely objects in space, matter in motion. The universe doesn't know or care the difference between a backyard barbecue and a genocide, it's nothing more than that which exists in constant flux.

However, I am against applied moral relativism, and I think it is in our interests to act as if there is objective morality. I base my own morality on the idea that suffering should be avoided and well being should be pursued. Morally positive things are that which bring happiness, pleasure, or improve our condition, morally neutral things are that which neither bring pleasure nor suffering, and morally negative things are that which cause suffering.

[Firaxin]

I'm not sure this would necessarily fit as an "issue", but it's something I've been thinking about a lot lately; is morality something that is real, or is it a construct?

Real in what way? As you currently phrase the question, it is both. Once something exists it is real, fiction or fact. Harry Potter is technically real, as a character in a book rather than an individual. Morality is most definitely a construct as it differs from person to person.

I think morality is greatly influenced by the society we grow up in and the influences we are surrounded by, but is it something that is real? Is there such thing as right and wrong?

Yes. I would find it disturbing to find a creature that doesnt believe in right or wrong. The only difference is what is right and wrong.

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

As soon as you admit any concept of human rights, you admit the concept of an universal morality. Otherwise you would be led to conclude, that if slavery has economic benefits it should be allowed, which is false.

Morality makes the distinction between human actions. Majority of humans function in some society. Therefore, morality should essentially judge and order two relations: that of an individual human to the society, and that of the society to an individual human. An utopian (i.e. most perfect) morality would order those two relations in such a way, that an individual could never be injured by the society and the society could never be injured by an individual. In other words, the most perfect moral system would judge as immoral things that go against either common or individual good, while applauding as moral and commendable those things that further either of the two. This is utopian, therefore impossible to achieve, yet it is possible for the different morality systems to resemble such ideal system. This is an universal and the objective goal of morality.

And as societies produce different laws, better or worse, so do they produce different moral systems. All those moral systems tend to the universal goal, although some are far more inferior to the others. Cultures that allowed for human sacrifices, slavery, murder, rape, pederasty, and other such things, did not allow for them for the sake of being evil, but because they failed to perceive such things as injurious to the common or the individual good. Or even wrongly perceived them as beneficial.

As in:

most western countries have come to the conclusion that the female genital mutilation taking place in other countries is wrong, but many people that live where it is taking place argue that it's a cultural thing and that it isn't wrong at all.

If it is a cultural custom, then it could be argued that it is beneficial for the common good to preserve it. This is absolutely false view, yet it does not escape the universal goal of morality (as above).

However, it is true that a moral system of one culture might not be applicable to another culture, even if said moral system is superior. Morality still needs to be actually enforced. Different societies, on different stages of advancement, diverge in what moral system is enforceable. An outright ban on female genital mutilation is enforceable in the West, but in countries where the practice is still widely accepted this is not possible.

Perfect moral system would be universal, but among different constructed moral systems none such exist. If you believe in an omniscient and omni-benevolent God, then if He requires humans to follow a system of morality, logically such system is the one in which perfect society is governed.

[Arkhane]

Morality does exist, and it is a universal constant. It doesn't mean however that it would prevail or be accepted by a culture or society.

But just because people have varying perspectives on what is right or wrong does not mean that there is no objective right thing to do; sometimes we don't see it, sometimes we see it but perceive it as not right, and sometimes we see it and perceive it as right, but will still not do it anyway.

[Straite]

Non-Western countries tended to be much less hostile to homosexuality than modern Western countries were until fairly recently. Many such standards are the result of colonial imposition of Christian European standards of morality and law upon their subjects.

Hmm :thinking: I wonder if a certain new eastern religion plays a part in that too. One that throws people off rooftops in relation to this subject. Guess I can't remember ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Pinch Me]

Universal morality is a construct. And oh! What a glorious construct!

Everything we are is a contruct - to be deconstructed - that is the meaning of being - the beings of meaning - the beans of meing.

If I shout "pervert" into a hole, can an ant die of shock? I don't know. But I'll defend my right to find out, so help me God!

[Valkea]

Of course morality is real. It's just that different cultures have different means of interpreting what is moral.

[Kowani]

Morality, as in the idea that something is “right” is a construct. Now, mind you, certain people may not see it that way, (Divine Law, Unalienable Rights, Human Rights, etc), but every moral system has been constructed by people.

[Callisdrun]

I try to base my morality on the concept of whether something harms others, and what would be the consequences if everyone did it.

Homosexuality, for instance, can't be wrong, because it harms no one.

[Kowani]

I try to base my morality on the concept of whether something harms others, and what would be the consequences if everyone did it.

Homosexuality, for instance, can't be wrong, because it harms no one.

Certain religions would disagree. Or more accurately, in those religions it harms your soul, since you’re gonna suffer eternally for it. Burning forever...yeah, that’s not fun.

[Callisdrun]

I try to base my morality on the concept of whether something harms others, and what would be the consequences if everyone did it.

Homosexuality, for instance, can't be wrong, because it harms no one.

Certain religions would disagree. Or more accurately, in those religions it harms your soul, since you’re gonna suffer eternally for it. Burning forever...yeah, that’s not fun.

Since such is not provable, it should not be the basis for laws.

Furthermore, that isn't harming others.

[Kowani]

Certain religions would disagree. Or more accurately, in those religions it harms your soul, since you’re gonna suffer eternally for it. Burning forever...yeah, that’s not fun.

Since such is not provable, it should not be the basis for laws.

Furthermore, that isn't harming others.

Oh, I agree that it shouldn’t be the basis for laws.

However, they would consider it harming others. Or rather, a society that permits it would be harmed, since it’s the equivalent of being an accomplice to a crime.

[Starpoint]

Every interpretation of morality that I’ve seen so far is an interpretation of how we can best thrive, whether through maximum freedom, providing safety for all, ensuring a better quality of life for as many people as possible even at the expense of others... I think morality can be interpreted differently by different people and different cultures, but the baseline is survival. Almost everyone would agree, for instance, that killing someone is morally wrong. Except, perhaps, for extreme straw utilitarians, who might argue that killing someone is morally acceptable if more lives are saved because of it. (And I understand that, to an extent, but I think there are almost always options to save people besides killing someone, and that it would be best to take those options instead, even if they are not immediately noticeable.) People can interpret morality however they want, but from what I can tell it’s essentially based around survival, and however that is interpreted. As is only logical for a creature whose innate desire is to survive and pass on their genes.

[Luziyca]

Morality is an interpretation: while most may agree on some basic things (it's immoral to cause harm unto others), there's a lot of divergence.

[Kowani]

Every interpretation of morality that I’ve seen so far is an interpretation of how we can best thrive, whether through maximum freedom, providing safety for all, ensuring a better quality of life for as many people as possible even at the expense of others... I think morality can be interpreted differently by different people and different cultures, but the baseline is survival. Almost everyone would agree, for instance, that killing someone is morally wrong. Except, perhaps, for extreme straw utilitarians, who might argue that killing someone is morally acceptable if more lives are saved because of it. (And I understand that, to an extent, but I think there are almost always options to save people besides killing someone, and that it would be best to take those options instead, even if they are not immediately noticeable.) People can interpret morality however they want, but from what I can tell it’s essentially based around survival, and however that is interpreted. As is only logical for a creature whose innate desire is to survive and pass on their genes.

Nszis. Islamic Terrorists. Unit 731. Pretty much every ancient conqueror ever. ‘Ndrangheta. ETA.
Need I go on?

[Callisdrun]

Since such is not provable, it should not be the basis for laws.

Furthermore, that isn't harming others.

Oh, I agree that it shouldn’t be the basis for laws.

However, they would consider it harming others. Or rather, a society that permits it would be harmed, since it’s the equivalent of being an accomplice to a crime.

Hadn't thought of it that way.

I mean, personally I don't believe self-harm is morally wrong. Unhealthy, definitely.

Even if one thinks that homosexuality harms the soul, that doesn't really hurt others or society. Hell, smoking cigarettes is harmful to one's health, and actually does cost society, but I still would be reluctant to call it "morally wrong."

[Callisdrun]

Every interpretation of morality that I’ve seen so far is an interpretation of how we can best thrive, whether through maximum freedom, providing safety for all, ensuring a better quality of life for as many people as possible even at the expense of others... I think morality can be interpreted differently by different people and different cultures, but the baseline is survival. Almost everyone would agree, for instance, that killing someone is morally wrong. Except, perhaps, for extreme straw utilitarians, who might argue that killing someone is morally acceptable if more lives are saved because of it. (And I understand that, to an extent, but I think there are almost always options to save people besides killing someone, and that it would be best to take those options instead, even if they are not immediately noticeable.) People can interpret morality however they want, but from what I can tell it’s essentially based around survival, and however that is interpreted. As is only logical for a creature whose innate desire is to survive and pass on their genes.

Nszis. Islamic Terrorists. Unit 731. Pretty much every ancient conqueror ever. ‘Ndrangheta. ETA.
Need I go on?

All of them thought that they were doing the right thing.

[Starpoint]

Every interpretation of morality that I’ve seen so far is an interpretation of how we can best thrive, whether through maximum freedom, providing safety for all, ensuring a better quality of life for as many people as possible even at the expense of others... I think morality can be interpreted differently by different people and different cultures, but the baseline is survival. Almost everyone would agree, for instance, that killing someone is morally wrong. Except, perhaps, for extreme straw utilitarians, who might argue that killing someone is morally acceptable if more lives are saved because of it. (And I understand that, to an extent, but I think there are almost always options to save people besides killing someone, and that it would be best to take those options instead, even if they are not immediately noticeable.) People can interpret morality however they want, but from what I can tell it’s essentially based around survival, and however that is interpreted. As is only logical for a creature whose innate desire is to survive and pass on their genes.

Nszis. Islamic Terrorists. Unit 731. Pretty much every ancient conqueror ever. ‘Ndrangheta. ETA.
Need I go on?

Ah, true. I mean as a general rule of thumb for the average person, but you are absolutely correct.

[Callisdrun]

Nszis. Islamic Terrorists. Unit 731. Pretty much every ancient conqueror ever. ‘Ndrangheta. ETA.
Need I go on?

Ah, true. I mean as a general rule of thumb for the average person, but you are absolutely correct.

The Nazis were elected by average people. Unit 731 was made up of average people.