Morality within a Secular Society.

[jascowhiz0]

Reading through the posts the general consensus appears to be that morality comes from genetics. For instance, I want to live. It is programmed into everyone.

Since everyone has these same programmed morals I would think that there is one programmed moral standard.

Zhavric points out "We make interpretations of these basic genetic morals. Societies base their morals on the collective interpretations of their members." Which is what is observed in society. But since we do only have one apparent genetic code, which makes us all human beings, we would all have one moral standard, from which we interpret. This would mean certain societies have a worse morality then others because the societies would have a misinterpretation of what our genetics really show.

Zhavric also points out that morality changes using the example of mass bombings with inaccurate technology as accepted morality back during WWII vs. strategic bombings with accurate technology as accepted morality nowadays. That doesn't quite seem like morality is changing on us. I looks like morality is becoming more defined as we better understand and control the world.

I would think he history of accepted killings would have become more defined like this: don't kill family member< don't kill clansmen< don't kill countrymen< don't kill innocent people < from this the theoretical ideal would be not to kill anyone, just lock them in jails(or other suitable institution). This all would be an interpretation of the programmed morality of life as life is better understood through a better understanding of the world and ourselves. Because there are these different interpretations of life, would a society that doesn't kill anyone be a better moral society than one that accepts killing non countrymen?

To sum it up, sense in a secular society morality would be based on programmed genetic code(which is what everyone appears to agree with), would that mean there is only one standard because there is only one code that makes a human being. If this is so, would that mean some societies have a better morality than others?

To Battig1370 who mentioned Farrow's Children. From my experience as a human, humans must learn to survive. If we don't learn we don't survive. It is what sets us apart from most every other animal on the planet. The fact that we need to learn to survive is programmed within our DNA. The best way for humans to learn is achieved by studying humans; how they develop; how they interact socially. Understanding these aspects of humans will get the best results for when humans learn. These aspects are based on our DNA which would mean the morality that would best encourage learning is based off our DNA.

[SoylentGreen]

jascowhiz0 morality comes from genetics.

I don't agree that morality comes from our genetics. What we get from genetics is the ability to act as social animals. Without that we all be loners and live in seclusion until mating season.
Snakes for example live for the most part in a defined territory and drive off other snakes until mating season and then hunt down a female snake ,mate and then depart.
But humans like all pack animals live together and form certain basic rituals that help them to survive. Like creating the alpha male and female to lead the pack.
Humans have developed intelligence which gives us the ability to form more complicated and diverse rituals which we call morals.
Genetics is the basis of why we have morals but it is intelligence that tell us what morals we have.

[jascowhiz0]

Quote by: SoylentGreen I don't agree that morality comes from our genetics. What we get from genetics is the ability to act as social animals. Without that we all be loners and live in seclusion until mating season. Snakes for example live for the most part in a defined territory and drive off other snakes until mating season and then hunt down a female snake ,mate and then depart. But humans like all pack animals live together and form certain basic rituals that help them to survive. Like creating the alpha male and female to lead the pack. Humans have developed intelligence which gives us the ability to form more complicated and diverse rituals which we call morals. Genetics is the basis of why we have morals but it is intelligence that tell us what morals we have.

So morality is a totally arbitrary thing created by intelligence and not based of how humans grow/develop/are built/how they interact with each other in certain situations.

[SoylentGreen]

jascowhiz0 So morality is a totally arbitrary thing created by intelligence and not based of how humans grow/develop/are built/how they interact with each other in certain situations.

No I said that morality is based on how humans grow/develop/are built/how they interact with each other in certain situations. All these are dealt with by our genetic codes.
Intelligence allows us to go beyond the basic morality created by the genetics towards more complicated and changing morality.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: J To sum it up, sense in a secular society morality would be based on programmed genetic code(which is what everyone appears to agree with), would that mean there is only one standard because there is only one code that makes a human being. If this is so, would that mean some societies have a better morality than others?

It's challenging to judge which moral code is "better" because we're going to see our own morals as beneficial and any other code as harmful.

A good litmus is harm. Morals which cause harm are usually a bad thing.

Example:

Fathers have evolved to want to care for their offspring. This is a highly beneficial trait because it helps ensure more offspring grow to adulthood.

Looking at two fathers, one lives in America and the other in Saudi Arabia.

Both have a daughter.

Both men remember how they felt towards girls in their youth and want to protect them from things like STD's and unwanted pregnancy.

The American father has a talk with his daughter. He explains what's acceptable behavior, what's not, explains about birth control and how boys think / what they want. He gives her a pack of condoms telling her he'd rather she wait until marriage, but acknowledging he can't watch her 24/7. He tells her he loves her.

An equally loving father in Saudi Arabia has his daughter's genitals surgically altered just after birth to remove most of her clitoris. He arranges a marriage for her to what he thinks is a good family and gently explains to her what a good thing this is.

Each father would look at the other one in disgust.

"Genital mutilation!?!?"

"Allowing your daughter to fratranize with men!?!?"

However each has the same genetic motivation; protect my offspring.

Genital mutilation is a bad thing by our standards and the standards of most individuals in the world. Does that make it "wrong" or "worse"? To us, yes... are you starting to see the problem with making such a comparison?

[Athena]

Quote by: jascowhiz0 Reading through the posts the general consensus appears to be that morality comes from genetics. For instance, I want to live. It is programmed into everyone. Since everyone has these same programmed morals I would think that there is one programmed moral standard. Zhavric points out "We make interpretations of these basic genetic morals. Societies base their morals on the collective interpretations of their members." Which is what is observed in society. But since we do only have one apparent genetic code, which makes us all human beings, we would all have one moral standard, from which we interpret. This would mean certain societies have a worse morality then others because the societies would have a misinterpretation of what our genetics really show. Zhavric also points out that morality changes using the example of mass bombings with inaccurate technology as accepted morality back during WWII vs. strategic bombings with accurate technology as accepted morality nowadays. That doesn't quite seem like morality is changing on us. I looks like morality is becoming more defined as we better understand and control the world. I would think he history of accepted killings would have become more defined like this: don't kill family member< don't kill clansmen< don't kill countrymen< don't kill innocent people < from this the theoretical ideal would be not to kill anyone, just lock them in jails(or other suitable institution). This all would be an interpretation of the programmed morality of life as life is better understood through a better understanding of the world and ourselves. Because there are these different interpretations of life, would a society that doesn't kill anyone be a better moral society than one that accepts killing non countrymen? To sum it up, sense in a secular society morality would be based on programmed genetic code(which is what everyone appears to agree with), would that mean there is only one standard because there is only one code that makes a human being. If this is so, would that mean some societies have a better morality than others? To Battig1370 who mentioned Farrow's Children. From my experience as a human, humans must learn to survive. If we don't learn we don't survive. It is what sets us apart from most every other animal on the planet. The fact that we need to learn to survive is programmed within our DNA. The best way for humans to learn is achieved by studying humans; how they develop; how they interact socially. Understanding these aspects of humans will get the best results for when humans learn. These aspects are based on our DNA which would mean the morality that would best encourage learning is based off our DNA.

This argument is fascinating coming from the thread questioning if Samolia is an archy. The bonobo are female dominate. The females hang together protecting eachother from aggressive males. Chimpanzees are male dominate and the females do not as effectively protect eachother from aggressive males. The difference in these cultures seems to be the distribution of food, the scarser the food supply, the more likely individual foraging, as opposed to eating in a group. There are moral differences. As we know, some areas of the world are more tolerant of forcefully taking brides, raping women, killing, etc.. Other areas of the world are intolerant of such behaviors. What is it that civilizes us, if not religion?

How about culture? We have a secular culture and it is very civilizing. How did we get here? Can a civilization be so destroyed it becomes like Samolia? Yes. We should not take our moral accomplishments for granted. Hard times reduce our humanity to intolerable levels.

[Athena]

Quote by: tinybear I disagree. If moral values are genetically based, how come they can change from time to time and are so dependent on external and often man-made factors?

SoylentGreen did an excellent job of explaining this. He makes me think of the moral stories we read to children, such as The Little Red Hen. The moral of the stories is the reason for the what happened. Morality in fact being our reasoning, not our biologically programmed reaction to life.

So when our circumstances change so does our reasoning. Children growing up in inner city ghettos are apt to have a different moral standard than their middle class teachers have. The ghetto child's reality being different from the middle class reality. However, the teacher presses upon the ghetto child the middle class standard, perhaps lacking awareness of why they preceive life differently, or perhaps with knowledge that if the child is to have opportunities in life, that child must conform to middle class standards.

The ghetto child will conform to the social rules of the ghetto population, expressing the biologically programmed social behavior. The teacher may react to this as subhuman, unless educated about being human.

[Athena]

jascowhiz0

would a society that doesn't kill anyone be a better moral society than one that accepts killing non countrymen?

Dueling was considered an important way of maintaining morality. Honor killings in some societies is considered a necessary way of maintianing morality. So is stoning people to death, or our more civilized execution of murderers. Chopping off a person's hand for stealing is considered a necessary way of maintaining morality in some places. Preventing poverty is considered a necessary way of maintaining morality in some places.

What happened to scoring threads? This thread should get a very high score because it has really stimulated thinking!:)

[jascowhiz0]

Dueling was considered an important way of maintaining morality. Honor killings in some societies is considered a necessary way of maintianing morality. So is stoning people to death, or our more civilized execution of murderers. Chopping off a person's hand for stealing is considered a necessary way of maintaining morality in some places. Preventing poverty is considered a necessary way of maintaining morality in some places. What happened to scoring threads? This thread should get a very high score because it has really stimulated thinking!

All of those standards were standards set by the times, but if you look at the places where these different standards are, they all line up chronologically according to how developed technology and the people were. Chopping off a hand was acceptable with the civilizations in the fertile crescent but wasn't acceptable to someone in the middle ages. Chopping off a person's hand is no longer used, not because we are in a different society, but because society has developed to a point where chopping off a hand is not the best way of maintaining morals(a population of one handed people is less productive than a population with two hands).

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric It's challenging to judge which moral code is "better" because we're going to see our own morals as beneficial and any other code as harmful. A good litmus is harm. Morals which cause harm are usually a bad thing. Example: Fathers have evolved to want to care for their offspring. This is a highly beneficial trait because it helps ensure more offspring grow to adulthood. Looking at two fathers, one lives in America and the other in Saudi Arabia. Both have a daughter. Both men remember how they felt towards girls in their youth and want to protect them from things like STD's and unwanted pregnancy. The American father has a talk with his daughter. He explains what's acceptable behavior, what's not, explains about birth control and how boys think / what they want. He gives her a pack of condoms telling her he'd rather she wait until marriage, but acknowledging he can't watch her 24/7. He tells her he loves her. An equally loving father in Saudi Arabia has his daughter's genitals surgically altered just after birth to remove most of her clitoris. He arranges a marriage for her to what he thinks is a good family and gently explains to her what a good thing this is. Each father would look at the other one in disgust. "Genital mutilation!?!?" "Allowing your daughter to fratranize with men!?!?" However each has the same genetic motivation; protect my offspring. Genital mutilation is a bad thing by our standards and the standards of most individuals in the world. Does that make it "wrong" or "worse"? To us, yes... are you starting to see the problem with making such a comparison?

I agree with Zhavric.
omgz...

^^

Universalism is the first refuge of Western rights chauvinists. They haughtily presuppose that it is their beliefs that are the universal ones.

Which moral beliefs are Westerners willing to part with for the sake of universalism? Or is it just a one-way street: what we believe is ours, what you believe is open to negotiation?

[jascowhiz0]

Quote by: Fangrim I agree with Zhavric. omgz... ^^ Universalism is the first refuge of Western rights chauvinists. They haughtily presuppose that it is their beliefs that are the universal ones. Which moral beliefs are Westerners willing to part with for the sake of universalism? Or is it just a one-way street: what we believe is ours, what you believe is open to negotiation?

The western society is the most developed society in the world, so it would have a more developed sense of morality. I'm not saying all of western societies moralities are right or correct, but some of them are better than other societies.

The example Zhavric points out shows that there are two different moral ways to approach the same situation. However, in the Islamic example, women do not have freedom. Because of this the father alters his daughter. Before we equate the Saudi way with the American way of morals, we have to look at the society and ask, is it moral for a society to dominate women and give them no freedoms. If the answer is that dominating women is immoral, then the Saudi way of altering their daughters becomes immoral.

One last point about morality. Morality is a choice of the individual. The person chooses whether to follow the standards set by society. It is up to society to understand the best moral system.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: jascowhiz0 The western society is the most developed society in the world, so it would have a more developed sense of morality. I'm not saying all of western societies moralities are right or correct, but some of them are better than other societies. The example Zhavric points out shows that there are two different moral ways to approach the same situation. However, in the Islamic example, women do not have freedom. Because of this the father alters his daughter. Before we equate the Saudi way with the American way of morals, we have to look at the society and ask, is it moral for a society to dominate women and give them no freedoms. If the answer is that dominating women is immoral, then the Saudi way of altering their daughters becomes immoral. One last point about morality. Morality is a choice of the individual. The person chooses whether to follow the standards set by society. It is up to society to understand the best moral system.

You, sir, are a Western rights chauvinist.

" Before we equate the Saudi way with the American way of morals, we have to look at the society and ask, is it moral for a society to dominate women and give them no freedoms. If the answer is that dominating women is immoral, then the Saudi way of altering their daughters becomes immoral."

Let's transform this into the opposite argument, which is just as valid:

" Before we equate the American way with the Saudi way of morals, we have to look at the society and ask, is it moral for a society to expose their women to danger and give them too many inappropriate freedoms. If the answer is that exposing women is immoral, then the American way of allowing fraternization with their daughters becomes immoral."

There we go. All better, eh?

[Battig1370]

When my grandson was born from my daughter, I asked her to brainwash the new baby in the good way, that is to be kind the others.

Humans are born with ability/genetics to aquire the moralities which are the rights and wrongs of the culture they are exposed to. Also humans are born totally self-centred/selfish which may be in confict with the ability/genetics to aquire the moralities from the family and the society as the individual grows.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: jascowhiz0 One last point about morality. Morality is a choice of the individual. The person chooses whether to follow the standards set by society. It is up to society to understand the best moral system.

Societies understand the moral system they understand. There really is no good litmus for testing them because A) we're all biased towards our own and B) the only thing we can look at is "harm" which is often subjective.

Look at the abortion debate. The death penalty debate. We see a society that's so diverse it doesn't agree on all morals. So we have what the media loves to call "the culture war".

Much so-called religious morality is tempered by secular morality. Much of so-called morality in the Bible is far too cruel and brutal to be acceptable to a modern secular society.

Indeed, at least 4 of the 10 commandments have no place in a secular, pluralistic, tolerant society.

Regards
S.

[Athena]

Quote by: jascowhiz0 The western society is the most developed society in the world, so it would have a more developed sense of morality. I'm not saying all of western societies moralities are right or correct, but some of them are better than other societies. The example Zhavric points out shows that there are two different moral ways to approach the same situation. However, in the Islamic example, women do not have freedom. Because of this the father alters his daughter. Before we equate the Saudi way with the American way of morals, we have to look at the society and ask, is it moral for a society to dominate women and give them no freedoms. If the answer is that dominating women is immoral, then the Saudi way of altering their daughters becomes immoral. One last point about morality. Morality is a choice of the individual. The person chooses whether to follow the standards set by society. It is up to society to understand the best moral system.

What you said hit a nerve. Cooperate cultures often promote the worst immorality, such as Enron. Until 1958 the US education focused on cooperation and independent thinking. Then it changed to "group think" and competitiveness. The change in Star Trek and Star Trek the Next Generation demonstrates this change from independent thinking to "group think". Kirk is the John Wayne of space, and Picard is the "group thinker". The problem with "group think" is when a cooperation like Enron takes the wrong turn individuals are caught up with an engame, and lack the early moral driven training that prepared individual for independent thinking.

This change in public education caused social break down without a new model. We are struggling to determine what the new model will be. One of the first steps of change was interracial marriage. It appears the next will be homosexual marriages. Paradoxically, while many are fighting for the right to marry, marriage and family has become a very weak institution. Today's technological family can be any combination of people, people want family to be, and these are often much less stable than the traditional family.

[Athena]

Quote by: Fangrim You, sir, are a Western rights chauvinist. " Before we equate the Saudi way with the American way of morals, we have to look at the society and ask, is it moral for a society to dominate women and give them no freedoms. If the answer is that dominating women is immoral, then the Saudi way of altering their daughters becomes immoral." Let's transform this into the opposite argument, which is just as valid: " Before we equate the American way with the Saudi way of morals, we have to look at the society and ask, is it moral for a society to expose their women to danger and give them too many inappropriate freedoms. If the answer is that exposing women is immoral, then the American way of allowing fraternization with their daughters becomes immoral." There we go. All better, eh?

Whoo, whoo- we accept circumcision of males and something like 60% of the males in the US are circumcised. However, new research indicates circumcision of males removes 5 sensitive areas. As a woman I think this maybe a good thing, as we take longer to climax and a man who rejaculates early can cause her sexual frustration. The point is, although circumcision reduces the sensitive of the penius, we ususal call this mutilation.

Secondly, in the US during the Victorian period, some women were surgically altered to reduce their sexual responsiveness. My grandmother's generation tended to think sex was dirty and good women did not enjoy it, but did it as a duty. I am glad we have evolved from this, but now we complain about welfare mom's, and many complain when someone says people should not sex outside of marriage. In the past on volconvo, men have argued they should have the right to force a woman to abort by the freedom of not having to pay child support for a child they do not want. I think these men are being sexually irresponsible, but we sure can not pat ourselves on the back for our great moral choices. Not yet.

One more thing, the west has locked up sexually active women in monestaries and insane Asylums. We have branded them with the letter "A" causing them assured social rejection when this was life endangering.

We have forced people to marry, and married women had no rights, but were free slave labor to men who could legally beat them into doing what they were told to do. This is changing and relatively recently, police finally started responding to domestic abuse and the legal system has begun prosecuting without the victum requesting this. However, I have known women who didn't have a sense of freedom, until their husbands died. My own mother supported her husband's dreams, but they didn't support hers. This is very complex and seems to have much to do with biological urges, however submissive urges were reinforced by ignoring the abuse of women, and institutionalizing them, and having an economic system that closed them out of jobs and prevented them from getting bank loans unless a man signs for them.

In general, with regards to freedom, it was worse to be born female than Black.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Athena Whoo, whoo- we accept circumcision of males and something like 60% of the males in the US are circumcised. However, new research indicates circumcision of males removes 5 sensitive areas. As a woman I think this maybe a good thing, as we take longer to climax and a man who rejaculates early can cause her sexual frustration. The point is, although circumcision reduces the sensitive of the penius, we ususal call this mutilation. Secondly, in the US during the Victorian period, some women were surgically altered to reduce their sexual responsiveness. My grandmother's generation tended to think sex was dirty and good women did not enjoy it, but did it as a duty. I am glad we have evolved from this, but now we complain about welfare mom's, and many complain when someone says people should not sex outside of marriage. In the past on volconvo, men have argued they should have the right to force a woman to abort by the freedom of not having to pay child support for a child they do not want. I think these men are being sexually irresponsible, but we sure can not pat ourselves on the back for our great moral choices. Not yet. One more thing, the west has locked up sexually active women in monestaries and insane Asylums. We have branded them with the letter "A" causing them assured social rejection when this was life endangering. We have forced people to marry, and married women had no rights, but were free slave labor to men who could legally beat them into doing what they were told to do. This is changing and relatively recently, police finally started responding to domestic abuse and the legal system has begun prosecuting without the victum requesting this. However, I have known women who didn't have a sense of freedom, until their husbands died. My own mother supported her husband's dreams, but they didn't support hers. This is very complex and seems to have much to do with biological urges, however submissive urges were reinforced by ignoring the abuse of women, and institutionalizing them, and having an economic system that closed them out of jobs and prevented them from getting bank loans unless a man signs for them. In general, with regards to freedom, it was worse to be born female than Black.

So...are you agreeing with me that Westerners are rights chauvinists, or are you disagreeing with me?


Also:" In the past on volconvo, men have argued they should have the right to force a woman to abort by the freedom of not having to pay child support for a child they do not want. I think these men are being sexually irresponsible, but we sure can not pat ourselves on the back for our great moral choices. Not yet."
Easier to just make child support optional, like giving birth is right now.
And if the men are irresponsible for wanting out of child support, what are the women for killing the baby so they don't have to raise and give birth to it? Virtuous?

[jascowhiz0]

Quote by: Fangrim You, sir, are a Western rights chauvinist. " Before we equate the Saudi way with the American way of morals, we have to look at the society and ask, is it moral for a society to dominate women and give them no freedoms. If the answer is that dominating women is immoral, then the Saudi way of altering their daughters becomes immoral." Let's transform this into the opposite argument, which is just as valid: " Before we equate the American way with the Saudi way of morals, we have to look at the society and ask, is it moral for a society to expose their women to danger and give them too many inappropriate freedoms. If the answer is that exposing women is immoral, then the American way of allowing fraternization with their daughters becomes immoral." There we go. All better, eh?

I'm from the West, obviously, and I think certain Western morals are correct. But I'm not a homer about these morals and go off blabbering that I'm right and another is wrong. From being human and interacting with men and women, humans are free. Then I see the Middle East and I see a moral system where women are not free. I understand the reasons behind why they have such a system, but I disagree on their answers for the reasons. (a reason would be protect my offspring; the moral answers in the Middle East is alter women and give them no freedoms) I disagree on their answers because humans are free and I think that their moral system is not as good because it doesn't allow all humans to be free. Does this disagreement and judgment automatically make me a Western right chauvinist?

[Fangrim]

Quote by: jascowhiz0 I'm from the West, obviously, and I think certain Western morals are correct. But I'm not a homer about these morals and go off blabbering that I'm right and another is wrong. From being human and interacting with men and women, humans are free. Then I see the Middle East and I see a moral system where women are not free. I understand the reasons behind why they have such a system, but I disagree on their answers for the reasons. (a reason would be protect my offspring; the moral answers in the Middle East is alter women and give them no freedoms) I disagree on their answers because humans are free and I think that their moral system is not as good because it doesn't allow all humans to be free. Does this disagreement and judgment automatically make me a Western right chauvinist?

Your method of judgement is surely a lesser form of it. You at least apply analysis to the subject and make a conscious judgement of morals and what you think is right. You are also aware that your moral standard may be different than the standards of other societies, and you use a criterion particular to your society understanding that it is of your society instead of a universal truth.

I stand corrected. You are not a Western rights chauvinist, just a supporter for the basic standards of the Western conception of rights. Nothing chauvinistic about believing something, as long as you're not going to thrust those beliefs on others.