Forums → WEPR → Morality "Exists"
| 15 | 3235 |
How can mortality exist?
What is mortality in the first place to exist?
I have always said that there is no such thing as mortality, but in a sense there is.
Mortality is a definition thats already been set in our brain, but we don't quite know it.
What do we think evil is?
Anything that goes against ones happiness(Probably not the best word choice)
So killing, stealing, rape...
When we argue mortality does not exist...what is the statement we are making?
- 15 Replies
You keep on saying mortality, but are you talking about morality?
Morality is pretty much what we think is good, bad, right and wrong. In general, it's our conscience. Evil is pretty much what we see as totally and utterly against our own morals. That last sentence seems to drift away from making sense. Our morals don't go away in a fight.
Well some, including myself, would say that mortality doesn't exist.
So...
I thought, when I said that, what was I defining mortality as?
Well, I'm not quite sure what you are a saying. Unless you are thinking of a totally different word. Now are you talking about,
Mortality-The condition of being susceptible to death. [url]http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mortality[/url]
or morality?-The ability to distinguish good and evil or right and wrong, right or good conduct; Motivation based on ideas of right and wrong. [url]http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/morality[/url]
Which one are you referring to? The title of this thread says morality but you keep on say mortality
This is usually what causes politics in my opinion.
Hah the morals for politics these days is if something means less money, then its BAD! Vice-versa
morality is a conditional term. I may not have all of the same morals as you or anyone else on AG. This is usually what causes politics in my opinion.
When people say that morality doesn't exist, what they mostly likely mean is that matters of right of wrong, of obligations and duties, don't have a metaphysically independent existence from human minds. This is understandable - afterall, it's a lot harder to demonstrate that a moral principle exists in and of itself than it is to demonstrate that a mineral exists. But just as it would be a mistake to dig under rocks looking for that elusive evidence that morals "exist", it is just as wrongheaded to conclude that just because we cannot 'lace' them metaphysically, doesn't mean that it is all discussion of morality is arbitrary, reducible to mere opinion where one person's is no better than anyone else's. So quickly people forget how crucial normative notions such as justice and responsibility are within a functional society, and it all begins with serious moral consideration - that is, contemplation of interests beyond oneself, but usually within a broader reciprocal context. If we were really as willy-nilly about such moral considerations as skeptics are wont to believe, all the institutions and relational frameworks that organize society wouldn't exist, and life would be mostly chaos.
That's a fairly standard claim for at the the mere acknowledgment of some sort of ethical standard, even if its not a normative one. I don't find the argument very convincing, however, because it turns into a question of "how many grains of sand does it take to make a pile."
There might be very vague notions that people have such as "concern for fellow humans" that people might try to present as a normative standard present in all cultures, but really that's merely derived from other set laws and (I don't think) can be said to be normative. In addition, an idea like that is too vague to have any real application and so is quite moot. What we really have are different standards and customs for different people. Currently, there are likely as many ethical standards are there are people in the world, so at what point does this break down and become chaos (thus, the how many grains of sand question)? How many different sets of standards does it take before chaos ensues? Do we really have to hold ourselves to some self-imposed standards? And let's say that the end result is, in fact, utter chaos - is this actually "bad"? In what sort of universal standard does the continuance of the human race play a vital role? Of course, there is none, it's all self-referential, but now we're just right back where we started.
You can't tell any one morals. They're what you make of it. Honestly, you create your own morals, the things people try and set are standards, not morals.
@Moe
One must ask why we have laws in the first place - what kinds of considerations made them possible? What values came first into play? If the laws were so out of touch with those values, we would eventually have anarchy, or at least serious social upheaval in which we would have to call our society dysfunction. I am looking at society from a developmental perspective so I don't think the grains of sand analogy really fits; I'm certainly not expecting anything to break down into chaos since the relationship between the values that necessitated the existence of laws and the values that people actually hold already appears to have developed into an equilibrium, even if you dispute what I believe to be a *compatibility* between the two. I think, as much as people can emphasize the variations across different people, and across different cultures, so too can we identity many commonalities at a more general scale. Taking an even closer look, I think, reveals that most of those differences are actually resulting from variations in the prioritization of similar values, rather than indicating that people have fundamentally different values.
Strat,
Your argument makes total sense in that respect, and also seems to be valid. I guess my main breakdown here is when does something make that transition from a somewhat normative ethical standard into something that becomes imposed upon people. Well, hang on, each time I'm reading this sentence I'm inferring different things from it:
I'm certainly not expecting anything to break down into chaos since the relationship between the values that necessitated the existence of laws and the values that people actually hold already appears to have developed into an equilibrium
Are the values that necessitated the existence of laws what we would consider to be "vices" such as greed/selfishness? I think what you're saying is that personal ethical views and moral standards each developed as societies grew larger, and while they developed along their own lines they were not independent. Is that right?
I can see similarities between ethical standards that are imposed upon people and what we might consider to be personal values - such as not killing people or not taking things you want. But I'm wondering if this parallel is retrospective, I mean we certainly didn't start out as early humans with these standards, right? Is this ethical evolution something that became necessary as a means of survival? Sorry, it's late, I'm rambling.
Are the values that necessitated the existence of laws what we would consider to be "vices" such as greed/selfishness?
I'm not sure how to answer that. Certainly consideration of the self must have played a role, since it does in almost all matters, but that cannot be the whole story.
I think what you're saying is that personal ethical views and moral standards each developed as societies grew larger, and while they developed along their own lines they were not independent. Is that right?
Kind of. I take the view that moral standards are constructed rather than 'discovered', and that they evolve within the context of their environment. On the one hand, they reflect some ground within people's personal ethics, for the most part, but on the other, this also takes into account spatial and temporal considerations. I don't pretend to know how what moral standards looked like 100,000 years ago but my perspective doesn't require that they be identical to how they are now. Just as humans evolved in a biological sense to meet the changing conditions for their survival, so too was there a sort of cultural evolution in which society could remain functional in the face of change. In order for society to remain functional, an equilibrium between these morals and values at the individual and social level had to come into being. Of course there would always be 'outliers' but the 'interest of the whole' has always been a chief consideration that perpetuated this system in spite of those people feeling they are being imposed upon.
Strat and I have discussed this previously, so I hope neither of you mind if I butt in!
Are the values that necessitated the existence of laws what we would consider to be "vices" such as greed/selfishness?
Many people seem to interpret morality in this manner, but I think thae specific wording here already implies some kind of normative (purportedly moral) intuition has been engaged. To rephrase what Strat has said, one could say that our being compelled to declare or propose laws is a reflection of our seeking to adapt to environments (including each other) such that we can cohabit in as 'best' a way as is possible. That is to say, regardless of what we consider a vice or a virtue, that the laws come about not as a reaction to one or the other, but the balance of everything as a whole.
I guess my operative word here is 'reflection', as distinct from laws being treated in any other way, or even overextended.
So, an ethical truce in a sense. Certain standards came in to practice in order to allow us to live together in larger groups or at least in different environments. This seems very reasonable, but I just feel like we're having to presuppose some things in order to retrospectively apply morality in this way... but I'm not sure what it would be.
Maybe I feel like we're presupposing the purpose of ethical standards for us. They serve a certain purpose now for sure, but can we clearly support the idea that they served this purpose during their early development?
A comparison would be that classically flawed argument for the origin or religion that presumes early rituals helped people explain things or cope with death when we really have no idea at all what function these things served.
You must be logged in to post a reply!