Musing of the Moral Mind

[Aegis]

This is just something I wrote up today. It's my opinion, like or lump it, and discuss if you like. But, I thought I'd present it to a community that enjoys discussion, and figured you guys might enjoy this.

Quote:

Moral musings of the human mind. The study of ethics, one of the five branches of philosophy, trying to determine what is right, and what is wrong. How is it any one human being can determine what is right for another, without having walked in their shoes. For that matter, how can anyone even still make the call even then? This is the very nature in which society lives, with a group of people, the so-called educated, making the decisions for the populace, determining what they believe to be right and wrong for the people that follow them. While not quite the same as standard ethics, in that right and wrong are used subjectively, these decisions still result in compromising another group or societies idea of what may be right, and what may be wrong. The notion of a supreme right and wrong is a foolish notion, unless of course you are a spiritual person, because every one person has a different idea of what is ethically and morally good in life, and sometimes it happens to coincide with popular opinion. How can that be right though? How is it that one group of people's idea of what is 'right' is better then the next groups? People believe in unalienable rights, saying that these are entitled to people, regardless of what happens. These are morally and ethically right. These unalienable truths exist in the United States of America creed "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Simply put, society believes it is right that everyone be allowed to follow this doctrine, but in essence, it is no more right, then it is possible. What right does a man have who is being swallowed by the ocean, drowning towards his death? The ocean cares little for one individual, and doesn't part its waves so that person can walk free. The same is true when a man is forced to decide to save his life, or another's. Why is his right to live less important then the life of another man, or woman, or even a child. The very notion that we can believe it is ethically wrong to place the life of a man over the a child contradicts the idea of the first 'unalienable' right. Liberty is another matter. As was once said by Thomas Jefferson in 1787: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots." Simply put, liberty is not 'unalienable' as people claim it to be. It is something society and people must earn. This has been done through wars, rebellions and other violent coups, all of which saw fit to change a regime which did not coincide with a particular idea of what is ethically good. People take liberty for granted, believing that they are deserving of it. The fact of the matter is that they are not deserving of it. On the contrary, many who believe such a thing or those most unwilling to fight for this liberty, or for the liberty of others. These are the 'social elite' and the wealthy people. Though, this statement is only the truest in the first world countries. The term 'One man's terrorist, is another man's hero' comes to mind. There are indeed people in the world who will fight for the liberty of themselves, and their people, some of which are wealthy in their own home. These are the people who epitomize the ideals of liberty, and are the most worthy of this 'unalienable' right. The last unalienable right is no less a right, as it is a simple truth of life. People will do what they want, which makes them happy. It is that easy to understand. This idea of doing what you want to do is something no one can take away. It may be suppressed, but it can not be taken away. The catch is, though, what people often want to do to make them happy, sets on the rights of others, and is often considered morally, or ethically wrong in the eyes of the people at large. So, how is it we can think of this as being good and moral? The very notions of these three 'unalienable' rights are flawed in how people view them. They are not what is right, and not what is morally sound. They are believed to be, by those unwilling to do what it takes to be truly right and moral. Another issue with the idea of Ethics, is that it is believed that people are inherently good at heart. This is false, plain and simple. Humans are animals, and when they are born, that is how the world is perceived. There is no concept of right, or wrong, there is no moral instinct within man. Moral sense is something that is acquired, and taught to us. It is how society tells us to live and behave. It is subjective. A person with no moral instinct is thought to be a criminal, and a delinquent, or the wonderful oxymoron of 'juvenile delinquent'. Now, this isn't always the case, but often those that have no 'moral instinct' when adults, were 'juvenile delinquents' when they were younger. The contradiction of terms, though, lies in how society functions, and thinks. The word 'Juvenile' refers to someone who is not yet at the age of adulthood, and thus a minor. 'Delinquent' makes reference to someone who has failed in duty, in this case the duty to be moral, and upstanding, in the eyes of society, basically doing right by the social conscience. Now, duty is an adult quality, as dictated by society. Those who are not yet adults have no real sense of duty. They are lead along life, until reaching their adult years. They are told what to do, and they are provided for by the adults, as Society deems is 'right', therefore, a juvenile has no duty, and therefore no duty is can fail to uphold, thus creating the contradiction in terms. This contradiction leads to an interesting lapse of social justice, or what is upheld as ethically sound in society. We judge those termed 'Juvenile Delinquents' as people who do not deserve the same justice as those who are adults. If someone who is not an adult commits a crime, they are often let off with a warning, and minor punishment. An adult, someone with the duty laid upon their shoulders by society, someone who should have moral instinct, as dictated by society, is judged more harshly. The irony, though, is that there is always the chance of probation or parole for these offenders, because it is not considered right to not give them a second, third, or even fourth chance. How is it right that they can commit an offence, and be offered another chance, but if their crime was not a 'victim-less' one (which, really, there are no victimless crimes), the victim is not given another chance at whether or not they become the victim. The solution to this problem of the right conduct of treating offenders: Capital Punishment. As it is, offenders are not punished as they should be for an offense. A man who murders, is simply locked away for X number of years. Another who commits assault, likewise. Not only that, but they are at times considered for a second chance, rehabilitation. How is it society can view that as being the just and moral way? Why not deter these crimes in the first place. If a man steals, for whatever reason, he should be punished. Incarceration is the wrong idea, as it will only put that man into an environment in which that 'moral instinct' will become more skewed then before. Society may gain the same benefit from lashes of a whip, that it would from four years of incarceration. It is the same idea as housebreaking a puppy. So, why is it we will punish the puppy, physically and emotionally, but we won't punish humans the same way? It falls back to what the social instinct of society is, and therein lies a problem with the idea of what is right, and what is wrong. The subjective nature of ethics and morals is the leading cause of the lack of real morals in the world. We are concerned with what is political correct, and what people are entitled to in the world, when the simple fact is that by nature, people are entitled to nothing. It is society and people that have the misconstrued belief that they are entitled to any right. If that is the case, why is it the same rights are not put onto animals, or why is it some people chose to wave those rights? It is because that they do not exist within nature. It is the social instinct, and moral compass that humans try to create that dictate what is right, and what is wrong. The fallacy, though, is trying to dictate it to the greater populace of the world, instead of themselves. What is right and wrong is not something one person, or group of people can determine for the whole of society. It is up to the individual to determine that. Until we remove this idea of social instinct and social morality, and treat everyone the same, punishment and reward, the grey line that is Ethics will always remain a grey line. There is no right, and there is no wrong. There is only nature. -Leland Martel

[VonDondu]

Okay, I'll take a stab at it. With all due respect, your argument seems to be, "Since I don't know enough about ethics, there's no such thing as right and wrong."

Here are some suggestions:

The fact that we have a moral consciousness makes us morally responsible for our actions. Unlike events that happen due to impersonal, "unconscious" forces, our actions are the result of deliberation, intention, and conscious choice, thus giving them a moral dimension. (Let's set aside metaphysical issues such as "free will" for now and stick to ethics.)

Consider the difference between something "bad" and something truly "evil". Suppose a tree falls on a deer in the forest. You might call it "bad luck" or call it an "act of nature". According to most people's sensibilities, the deer's suffering is a terrible thing. But you can't really say that an "evil" thing has been done. But suppose that a person with malicious intent deliberately dropped a tree on top of a deer. Then you could call it an act of evil.

There's more. Since you couldn't call it an act of good, you can begin to isolate and distinguish between good and evil, which means that they must exist in an absolute, not relative, sense.

As for human rights, instead of starting with the idea of "rights", perhaps it would be more helpful to start with the idea of "moral obligations". Rights imply duties. Using your own moral consciousness, if you can identify specific obligations to other people, you can work forwards (instead of backwards) to identify people's specific rights. I think you'll find that there's a difference between universal human rights and "rights" that people have because they belong to a particular society that implicitly or explicitly agrees that people should have certain specific rights, which might vary from one culture or one form of government to another. And please try not to confuse moral issues with legal issues--there's a difference.

[Aegis]

Trust me, I do have some extensive ideas on ethics. The beauty of philosophy, almost anything goes

Quote:

Consider the difference between something "bad" and something truly "evil". Suppose a tree falls on a deer in the forest. You might call it "bad luck" or call it an "act of nature". According to most people's sensibilities, the deer's suffering is a terrible thing. But you can't really say that an "evil" thing has been done. But suppose that a person with malicious intent deliberately dropped a tree on top of a deer. Then you could call it an act of evil.

Let's take this one first. You are correct in saying that we would feel some type of remorse for the situation of the dear, and as such, would think of it as being wrong. The same being true if the situation was caused deliberatly. The catch, though, is that in nature, none of the other animals that see the situation of the dear give it more than a passing glance (save the hungry, hungry hippos ), and let the dear die, if it hasn't already, or simply let the remains sit there until it has decomposed, or has been scavenged. This is the base of nature, and our base as humans as well. Morals are not something a person is born with, rather it is an instinct of survival, to what we need to survive. In ancient times, if that meant bashing your neightbour over the head with a rock, well, thats what happened. It wasn't right, but it wasn't wrong either. It was survival.

Our idea of what is right and wrong is learned socially. Upon first coming into this world, we have no concept of what ethics, much less those unique to each society, but as we grow and develop, we are taught these ethics and morales. It is a learned moral conscience. To use an effective analogy, take house breaking a puppy. If a puppy makes a mess on the floor, it doesn't know what it did is wrong, because we haven't told it is, yet. So, we chastise the animal, even if it can't understand, we make it apparent, though, that we are displeased, and do so by showing the dog what it did, showing it with firm tone of voice and actions, and then with punishment. After so long, the puppy will know not to make a mess inside, because it is 'wrong'. The same is true of infants. They don't know something is wrong, until reared, and told that it is wrong.

Quote:

As for human rights, instead of starting with the idea of "rights", perhaps it would be more helpful to start with the idea of "moral obligations". Rights imply duties. Using your own moral consciousness, if you can identify specific obligations to other people, you can work forwards (instead of backwards) to identify people's specific rights. I think you'll find that there's a difference between universal human rights and "rights" that people have because they belong to a particular society that implicitly or explicitly agrees that people should have certain specific rights, which might vary from one culture or one form of government to another.

My discussion on the 'unalienable' rights was mostly put in to make a point that society, specifically those that govern, have been somehow given the power to decide what is right, and what is wrong for society as a whole. For them, it is ethically right to impose these basic freedoms, and rights, even though they do no exist naturally. While I am not so much opposed to my right to vote, live and pursue happiness, I do not think that we are entitled to such things. It is not ethically right to do so, because it means we may, and have, placed others, who maintain the same 'unalienable' rights, in a position where their right is ignored. How is it we can possibly view that as being right?

Quote:

And please try not to confuse moral issues with legal issues--there's a difference.

Moral issues encompass anything, and everything. It is the basic principle of cause and affect. If one country makes a legal decision to allow gay and lesbian marriages, because it is 'socially right', then they have made an ethical decision of what is right and wrong, and made it an official stance of a whole nation. Though, I can see where I might not have established that idea clear enough

In the end, simply by me saying that ethics and morals are subjective doesn't mean I have a lack of knowledge on the matter, because when it boils down to it, they truly are. What we view as right, is wrong by another society/culture. That is undeniable truth. But I have gone one further, and have said that there is even no right or wrong, there is only what society says, and that everything we learn about ethics is a social inheratence(sp), rather a natural ability.

On one final note, Thanks @VD. I've been itching to talk about this

[VonDondu]

Okay, my mistake. Instead of saying, "There's no such thing as right and wrong until we know what they are," what you're really saying is, "There's no such thing as right and wrong until we SAY what's right and wrong."

I'm a little too tired to get into this right now, but I'll write back tomorrow. Essentially, what I want to explain is my belief that right and wrong exist independently of human thought. People may or may not ever learn the "truth", but that doesn't change the truth. However, I agree that people who don't know the difference between right and wrong cannot make genuine moral choices and therefore cannot be held morally responsible for their amoral actions. However, to illustrate one of the differences between law and ethics, I still think that people who do "bad things" should be punished simply because it's a good social policy, not because the law embodies everything that's right and wrong.

That's the gist of it.

[Chanak]

Interesting topic @Aegis. I'll broadcast my thoughts about it later this week when I have the time. But suffice it to say, I find myself agreeing in a way with both you and Von. I think your points both have merit.

[Chanak]

Ok Aegis, I'll start a bit at a time.

As was once said by Thomas Jefferson in 1787:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots."
Simply put, liberty is not 'unalienable' as people claim it to be.

Since this ultimately ties in to the whole smorgasbord of ideas swirling around here, I'll kick off with this bit from your post.

Thomas Jefferson understood a simple truth about existence that you will find reflected in the philosophies of the East...and it is this: life is full of suffering. Buddha proclaimed it was the human condition. And you know what? I agree with Buddha, it's a common thread shared by all things which know life on planet earth.

You see it reflected in microcosm everyday in your own backyard. Every moment of every day, a great deal of suffering goes on out there. LOL, I know I presented that in somewhat of a comic fashion, but as is often the case, reality can often be stranger than fiction. If you stop to consider what I am saying, you will begin to see that it is the truth. An entomologist estimates that in your average backyard, over 30000 spiders ply their gruesome trade. Well, we all know what spiders do for a living. They eat living things. Some await their dinner patiently in a web of absolutely ingenious design...others are ferocious hunters who pounce upon their victims with blinding speed.

Insects are eaten by spiders...spiders get eaten by a lizard...that lizard is snapped up by a bird...and eventually that bird is killed by a cat. That cat gets into a fight with another cat, receives wounds which become infected...is killed by the infection and is eaten by bacteria. Round and round it goes. The natural world is a window in which we may see the inner workings of ourselves in motion, because as surely as death looms imminently on the horizon for that lizard and that cat, so it looms even before us, the undisputed big enchiladas of planet earth.

Everywhere you look, you will find living things engaged in a constant struggle to survive. Why? Well, quite frankly, the deck has been stacked against life, so to speak. If you do not engage in a fight to live, you will die. It's that simple. You have to struggle to get food. You have to struggle to stay warm. You sometimes must struggle in order to procreate. Fact is, it seems that everything life deems valuable on an instinctual level is something that requires a struggle to obtain. On the other hand, those things which life deems instinctually undesirable seems to come with no struggle at all. Starvation? No problem, don't go after food. Hypothermia? Easy, don't build a fire or sheek shelter from the elements. No children to help you when you are old and feeble? No problemo, don't compete with rivals in order to procreate. Tired of running? No sweat, just sit there, sooner or later something will show up to eat you.

That is my illustration of the Backyard Drama. How does it apply to humans? A very long time ago it applied directly to us in an undiluted form, before the Energizer Bunny and cuneiform. So now we think we are exempt from this drama we find in our own backyards...but I say we are not. No, I think we still face the same dilemma that spiders face...only it's a hell of a lot more complicated now that we have the Energizer Bunny.

It is my belief that human civilization began as a brilliant countermeasure against the planet's efforts to kill us off. Having trouble finding food yourself? No problem, hang out with a group looking for food and your chances to eat will dramatically increase. Tired of being chased up trees by hungry predators with huge fangs? Fight back with a group of guys armed with spears and clubs. Tiger steaks tonight.

So in a way, we changed the playing field altogether, something no other species has done. You would think that would be the end of that, but no...the playing field we have entered has exactly the same rules as the one we left behind. It's simple: we still have to struggle to obtain things which are desirable to us. Only now it's not simply food...maybe now, it's equality. Or the right to vote. The right to make decisions for yourself without interference from others. A far cry from the days when a sabretooth chased you into a hole in the ground.

I daresay that the suffering the human race has endured since we first started gathering food together in large groups far surpasses the hunger we experienced when we were going at it in twos or threes. Before, one of a group of three might fall prey to that sabertooth. These days, entire nations and cultures can be annihilated by another. Instead of the backyard, we can look at history to see the Human suffering unfold. Just like the backyard, it is full of struggle...and even shining moments of peace.

Everything that is worthy, everything that is desirable, everything that takes suffering away from our lives, is something that we must fight for. When we win, the respite we will know is sweet, though fleeting...for no sooner than it is in our hands, it is gone once again. Throughout the civilized human experience there have arose madmen...tyrants...entire cultures and nations bent on conquering other cultures and nations because the very act supplies them with something to ease their own lives...be it national pride (such as WW2 Germany and Japan), or the gaining of wealth and resources (the Scandanavian raiders of 9th century Europe). No human being instinctually desires to be imprisoned, nor enslaved to another (unless they are Weasel or BS )...and this, Aegis, is where Thomas Jefferson's words resound profoundly to me. A person...a culture...an entire nation must, at times during it's existence, struggle in order to remain free. This is the same struggle that all living things wage each and every day. History is our teacher, just like your backyard. We have the Energizer Bunny, it has crickets, but other than that, very similar to each other.

So...we can look at things this way. If everything in life that is desirable involves a struggle to get, then logic says why not take as much sting out of that struggle as possible (this is at the roots of human civilization itself IMO). Therefore, let's eliminate the possibility of being killed because someone likes the steak I am about to eat, or the car I am driving. Let's say everyone has the right to have desirable things in life...isn't it enough that the planet itself is out to kill us? Let's beat it at it's own game and restack the deck in our favor. What ends up happening when you proclaim that everyone has this right is...some of the suffering is taken out of the struggle. Is this a good thing? You bet. I think Thomas Jefferson, and others like him, understood that. In a very real way, the "common good" has a very direct impact on your own personal good, because at the roots of it all, your very own survival is at stake.

This ties into morality, and morals in general. I believe that morals do indeed originate within the human race...and it is precisely due to systems of morality, no matter how we perceive them, that we as a race have risen to mastery over all other forms of life on earth. More later. I'm beat for now.

[Aegis]

It's kind've funny. I came back here, seeing you post, getting ready to fight you tooth and nail, but, I pretty much saw you expand, and explain the very notion I presented simply, in that these rights are not unalienable, and should not be expected, that they have to be earned in some manner. With this partiucalr instance, as you went into detail about, survival. IF we do nothing, and just expect to be given these rights, well, we're gonna die. Everyone has to earn these rights (of which, I like to think more of as Civic Privledges).

Now, I realize that you still maintain a somewhat different idea of what constitutes earning these privledges then I do, and you presented your case nicely, with a very clear analogy. I just happen to think a little bit more militantly on the matter, believing that these privledges should be more difficult to obtain, and earn, rather then be given.

[Chanak]

Ah, well...I haven't really interjected my own personal thoughts on how I think things should be yet.

Hehe, let's face it though - everyone loves a free meal. Is there an easier way to do something? Is there a shortcut? How can I get something for nothing?

It's a paradox. It really is in human nature to seek the easiest way to accomplish something. The less energy expended, the less suffering we will face...in the short term, that is. We have yet to fully understand the consequences we shall face for our meteoric rise to dominance (on a planetary timescale, that is). We did it on each other's backs...and now that is coming back to haunt us. Yup, day to day life appears to be easier now than it was back in the days when when a 30 year old was a senior citizen.

We aren't exempt from those immutable laws of existence at all. I think they are catching up to us now.