Morality is a Culturally Conditioned Response

[Philosophy Now]

Jesse Prinz argues that the source of our moral inclinations is merely cultural.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Mora ... d_Response

[Typist]

Another article that ignores the fact that philosophers are a tiny minority.

Moral relativism is correctly labeled as sophomoric, as it ignores the reality of human beings, in the same way an inexperienced young person would.

The philosopher assumes that if they can just write the correct logic math equation, a useful answer will pop out.

The philosopher ignores that this approach addresses only the thin veneer of reason which coats the real source of human activity, the much more influential emotion driven center of our subconscious.

Moral systems recognize that it's not possible to enforce the self sacrifice that civilization requires from the outside.

The purpose of morality is to get the user to police themselves, by connecting necessary social rules to what the user cares about the most, their self image.

In order for this to work, moral systems have to claim some kind of universal authority. Whether this universal authority actually exists is largely irrelevant.

The practical matter is that if moral relativism continues to gain popularity, the end result will be ever more people doing whatever the heck they want, which threatens the social contract necessary for any of us to get what we want.

[Thundril]

Another article that ignores the fact that philosophers are a tiny minority.

Moral relativism is correctly labeled as sophomoric, as it ignores the reality of human beings, in the same way an inexperienced young person would.

The philosopher assumes that if they can just write the correct logic math equation, a useful answer will pop out.

The philosopher ignores that this approach addresses only the thin veneer of reason which coats the real source of human activity, the much more influential emotion driven center of our subconscious.

Moral systems recognize that it's not possible to enforce the self sacrifice that civilization requires from the outside.

The purpose of morality is to get the user to police themselves, by connecting necessary social rules to what the user cares about the most, their self image.

In order for this to work, moral systems have to claim some kind of universal authority. Whether this universal authority actually exists is largely irrelevant.

Are you saying we need to have some people, (philosophers?) who tell everybody else that morals have universal authority whether they believe it themselves or not? And this is necessary because otherwise...

The practical matter is that if moral relativism continues to gain popularity, the end result will be ever more people doing whatever the heck they want, which threatens the social contract necessary for any of us to get what we want.

So you go along with the 'Moral Fictionalism' discussed by Richard Joyce in another article in the same group?

So who does the 'preaching whilst not necessarily believing' and who has to do the 'believing and obeying.'?

[Thundril]

Another article that ignores the fact that philosophers are a tiny minority.

Moral relativism is correctly labeled as sophomoric, as it ignores the reality of human beings, in the same way an inexperienced young person would.

The philosopher assumes that if they can just write the correct logic math equation, a useful answer will pop out.

The philosopher ignores that this approach addresses only the thin veneer of reason which coats the real source of human activity, the much more influential emotion driven center of our subconscious.

Moral systems recognize that it's not possible to enforce the self sacrifice that civilization requires from the outside.

The purpose of morality is to get the user to police themselves, by connecting necessary social rules to what the user cares about the most, their self image.

In order for this to work, moral systems have to claim some kind of universal authority. Whether this universal authority actually exists is largely irrelevant.

Are you saying we need to have some people, (but clearly not the sophomoric philosophers?) who tell everybody else that morals have universal authority whether they believe it themselves or not? And this is necessary because otherwise...

The practical matter is that if moral relativism continues to gain popularity, the end result will be ever more people doing whatever the heck they want, which threatens the social contract necessary for any of us to get what we want.

So you go along with the 'Moral Fictionalism' discussed by Richard Joyce in another article in the same group?

So who does the 'preaching whilst not necessarily believing' and who has to do the 'believing and obeying.'?

[Typist]

Are you saying we need to have some people, (philosophers?) who tell everybody else that morals have universal authority whether they believe it themselves or not?

The article notes that there have been many different moral systems across the world for thousands of years. That is, moral systems have proven to be necessary.

I would suggest moral systems can be sold best by those who believe in them sincerely. Universal authority doesn't require gods, it only requires a shared conviction that the moral statements are RIGHT! That is, relativist mush which denies a clear rightness won't get the job done.

And this is necessary because otherwise...

Because otherwise, everybody will invent their own morality, and you won't like a lot of them.

So you go along with the 'Moral Fictionalism' discussed by Richard Joyce in another article in the same group?

Haven't read that yet, can't say.

So who does the 'preaching whilst not necessarily believing' and who has to do the 'believing and obeying.'?

The preaching can be done by anybody who believes the sermon. The believing can be done by anybody who'd like to live in a civilization characterized by some degree of peace and order.

[Thundril]

I would suggest moral systems can be sold best by those who believe in them sincerely.

"Sold?" O-kaay..
Fine, but I'm asking about the gap that exists between your need for a morality that will be taken to be universal and the recognition, by you, that such a morality need not necessarily actually be universal. How would you, for example, persuade someone else to believe this morality, and then, once you are satisfied that they have believed it, how would you encourage such a believer to preach this morality to others as if it were really universal? Can this be done without some level of dishonesty?

Universal authority doesn't require gods, it only requires a shared conviction that the moral statements are RIGHT!

Yes. I'm trying to get at how you arrive at said 'shared conviction'.

And this is necessary because otherwise...

Because otherwise, everybody will invent their own morality, and you won't like a lot of them.

That sounds like the world as it has always been. Not at all perfect, but the worst of it seems to be the endless bloody conflicts between the followers of the preachers of different and conflicting 'Universal Truths.'

So you go along with the 'Moral Fictionalism' discussed by Richard Joyce in another article in the same group?

Haven't read that yet, can't say.

Neither have I. Have looked at the synopsis though. Looks like it might be saying the same thing you are saying. I'd be interested to read what you think if you get a chance to read it.

So who does the 'preaching whilst not necessarily believing' and who has to do the 'believing and obeying.'?

The preaching can be done by anybody who believes the sermon.

So who produces the sermon in the first place? Whose version of morality shall we adopt as the 'Universal' one? Who gets to pick, vote, or design from scratch, the successful code?

The believing can be done by anybody who'd like to live in a civilization characterized by some degree of peace and order.

Would you accept that 'pretending to believe' would suit your purpose of peace and order etc., as long as everybody pretended to believe the same thing? I agree in theory that might result in a kind of universal harmony based on a kind of universal self-delusion. Which we might as well call god.
This still leaves the vexatious question of what to do about the actual world, in which lots of different people actually do believe lots of different things.

[Typist]

How would you, for example, persuade someone else to believe this morality, and then, once you are satisfied that they have believed it, how would you encourage such a believer to preach this morality to others as if it were really universal? Can this be done without some level of dishonesty?

Be careful of over thinking this. As I said at the top, the vast majority of folks are not philosophers. We aren't designing a system for philosophers, who are of course, already perfect as they are.

I don't feel we need dishonesty. As example, I sincerely believe every human being is born "with certain inalienable rights". I could sell that without any inner conflict.

Yes. I'm trying to get at how you arrive at said 'shared conviction'.

Quite a bit of shared conviction already exists. What I'm suggesting is that fancy talk thinker like us not undermine that shared conviction by trying to replace it with moral relativism.

That sounds like the world as it has always been. Not at all perfect, but the worst of it seems to be the endless bloody conflicts between the followers of the preachers of different and conflicting 'Universal Truths.'

There's a conviction of "rightness" that while not universal, is widely shared. Religious violence is bad.

I agree that violence arising from competing truths are a problem, but we're not going to solve that by discarding all truths.

Neither have I. Have looked at the synopsis though. Looks like it might be saying the same thing you are saying. I'd be interested to read what you think if you get a chance to read it.

Please remind me if I forget.

So who produces the sermon in the first place? Whose version of morality shall we adopt as the 'Universal' one? Who gets to pick, vote, or design from scratch, the successful code?

I do. Next question?

Seriously, I'm less concerned with inventing a new moral system than I am in rejecting relativism. Although there's quite a bit of quarreling over the details, there's actually pretty wide agreement on some important fundamentals. Let's not toss that out in our passion to be intellectually clever.

Would you accept that 'pretending to believe' would suit your purpose of peace and order etc., as long as everybody pretended to believe the same thing?

How about this? We might identify those things that most people sincerely believe to be RIGHT! And then strengthen that agreement, rather than undermine it.

This still leaves the vexatious question of what to do about the actual world, in which lots of different people actually do believe lots of different things.

Recent events in Egypt offer an example.

There's been lots of conflict in the world for the last 500 years between democracy and dictatorships. We might conclude there's a great division.

What events in Egypt reveal is that there really isn't such a big division. We want political freedom for ourselves, and millions of Egyptians do too. Those who disagree are a tiny, if determined, minority.

[Thundril]

In order for this to work, moral systems have to claim some kind of universal authority. Whether this universal authority actually exists is largely irrelevant.

This is what I am questioning.
It would be better if we all agreed on some basic moral principles.
Most of us do.
Some awkward few don't.
I don't see how 'claiming universal authority' helps in this situation.

IQuite a bit of shared conviction already exists. What I'm suggesting is that fancy talk thinker like us not undermine that shared conviction by trying to replace it with moral relativism.

I'm really not a fancy thinker, but this is the sort of discussion I have with people in pubs all the time. The awareness that morality isn't derived from some universal authority is already out there.

[Typist]

Universal authority might be a poor phrase. It does seem likely to trigger a theism debate.

My intent is to declare some things right and wrong in a clear direct unambiguous manner.

I'm concerned that relativism opens the door to everybody making up their own rules.

It's ok for me to rape your daughter, because I'm just expressing urges which were created by nature, and are thus higher than any rule man creates...

And other such nonsense.

[artisticsolution]

Hi Typist,

I really do like your tenacious spirit. You are fun and interesting to follow around the forum. I must admit...I don't always understand what goes through that pretty lil' head of yours all the time. For example...I am sure you have replied to this thread without reading the whole article, otherwise you see most of your sentiments about moral relativism being a free for all for immorality answered at the end of the article under "living with moral relativism." You should read it...I would be very interested in hearing how you would argue the explanations.

Anywhooo, (don't you just hate when people say "anywho"?) I thought this was an interesting paragraph from the article in regard to your philosophy:

"Objectivists might reply that progress has clearly been made. Aren’t our values better than those of the ‘primitive’ societies that practice slavery, cannibalism, and polygamy? Here we are in danger of smugly supposing superiority. Each culture assumes it is in possession of the moral truth. From an outside perspective, our progress might be seen as a regress. Consider factory farming, environmental devastation, weapons of mass destruction, capitalistic exploitation, coercive globalization, urban ghettoization, and the practice of sending elderly relatives to nursing homes. Our way of life might look grotesque to many who have come before and many who will come after."

You know how when you don't agree with someone's argument you always bring out the "Moral superiority pose" defense as if it's a bad thing? It seems to me that is like making an argument from a militant moral relativist's perspective while you clearly don't hold that position. In the world of moral objectivism, isn't that self defeating? (Coughs *hypocrisy* Coughs)

So my question is...why do you use the "Moral Superiority Pose" defense to chastise your opponent when you clearly think morality is the way society should conduct itself?

[Thundril]

It's ok for me to rape your daughter, because I'm just expressing urges which were created by nature, and are thus higher than any rule man creates...

And other such nonsense.

Are you quotinfg an actual moral relativist here, or one made of straw?

[Arising_uk]

...
What events in Egypt reveal is that there really isn't such a big division. We want political freedom for ourselves, and millions of Egyptians do too. Those who disagree are a tiny, if determined, minority.

Yeah! A tiny minority called the US goverment. Unless it's skipped Typists notice his tax dollars have been supporting Mubarak for 40 years and since he's claimed that he owns his govt it appears he's been fighting for dictatorship with no apology.

You couldn't make him up if you tried.

[Arising_uk]

LMAO! Just read the article and I can't believe Typist has bothered. As it bases moral relativism largely upon the emotions.

[artisticsolution]

...
What events in Egypt reveal is that there really isn't such a big division. We want political freedom for ourselves, and millions of Egyptians do too. Those who disagree are a tiny, if determined, minority.

Yeah! A tiny minority called the US goverment. Unless it's skipped the Typists notice his tax dollars have been supporting Mubarak for 40 years and since he's claimed that he owns his govt it appears he's been fighting for dictatorship with no apology.

You couldn't make him up if you tried.

40 years? I thought it was 30? Not that it matters much. I am not good with history, Arising. Why did we start paying him to begin with? Did America give him the money 30/40 years ago for the soul purpose of him to be a dictator, or did they give it as protection money for Israel, or did they give it to him to help the Egyptian people and then he used it for his own purpose? What happened there. Why would America want to support a dictator by giving him money? What did we get in return?

[Arising_uk]

...40 years? I thought it was 30? Not that it matters much. I am not good with history, Arising. Why did we start paying him to begin with? Did America give him the money 30/40 years ago for the soul purpose of him to be a dictator, or did they give it as protection money for Israel, or did they give it to him to help the Egyptian people and then he used it for his own purpose? What happened there. Why would America want to support a dictator by giving him money? What did we get in return?

I stand corrected AS, he made VP in 75 and Prez in 81.

He made prez when El Sadat was killed by army officers unhappy with Sadats peace treaty with Israel, a crying shame. The military coup allowed the military, through Mubarak - VP and ex-military, to take control and start suppressing any opposition. I think you may be right that there was also the idea of "protection money for Israel" but I'd not thought of that. What the Egyptian people got was the normal panoply of secret police, torture, beatings, imprisonment for political beliefs, etc. What we thought we'd got was a power base in Egypt, i.e. free use of airspace and landing facilities for our forces if needs be, an ally to be played off amongst the others in the region, a force against islamic fundamentalism, etc, all the usual geo-political reasons. What we might have got, depending upon the militarys response, is the election of an Islamic political movement pretty antithetical towards the West. But maybe not as the Egyptians are a very old nation so what they produce could be most interesting, i.e. I doubt they'll go for the kind of theocracy of the Sauds or the Iranians.

Sorry this should be in the politics thread.