Double Standards of Secular Morality

[variant]

Sorry to answer your question with another question, but what do you mean by "complexity"? More laws, more people, better technology?

You have the right idea.

What I am saying is that proper morality allows society to progress, become more integrated and complex, and tolerates fewer and fewer contradictions and injustices. Those societies that regularly allowed rampant murder and cannibalism were over-run eons ago whereas more organized more just societies came to the forefront.

Our society will be judged by the same standard and will succeed based upon how well we can deal with one another, or it will fall apart into barbarism and no longer allow us to progress.

That is the true choice between morality and immorality. Will you choose to benefit yourself in the short term with selfish greed or murderous instinct or look to the long term stability of your kin and society.

Which is why threads like this are so funny, there is no contradiction between biology and morality in a social creature, just in the short sightedness of our own aims.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

More like, humans decide what is good and evil.

No, or at least in one sense, we have to live with it. For instance, let yourself be waterboarded and you will have no choice in disapproving of it. I think we have a degree of ethical voluntarism i.e. freedom over moral codes, but not total axiological volunturism i.e. freedom over fundamentals like whether to approve of the experience of being tortured.

 

[Redac]

What I am saying is that proper morality allows society to progress, become more integrated and complex, and tolerates fewer and fewer contradictions and injustices. Those societies that regularly allowed rampant murder and cannibalism were over-run eons ago whereas more organized more just societies came to the forefront.

I disagree with this, in that I'd qualify the statement that "proper morality allows a society to progress". A lot of the progress of various societies has had little to do with their morality and a lot to do with things like subsistence patterns, geography, etc. Even the example of cannibalism isn't entirely accurate, as many smaller groups who practiced cannibalism did not fall apart because of it. Rather, colonial governments forced them to abandon it.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

(Most of my posts seem to have more questions than answers )

What I am saying is that proper morality allows society to progress, become more integrated and complex, and tolerates fewer and fewer contradictions and injustices. Those societies that regularly allowed rampant murder and cannibalism were over-run eons ago whereas more organized more just societies came to the forefront.

A lot of the progress of various societies has had little to do with their morality and a lot to do with things like subsistence patterns, geography, etc. Even the example of cannibalism isn't entirely accurate, as many smaller groups who practiced cannibalism did not fall apart because of it. Rather, colonial governments forced them to abandon it.

Redac: That's a really good point. Many 'barbaric' societies died out because they were conquered by others, who later banned these cruel practices. Animals practice things we would consider evil by human standards (rape, infanticide, murder etc.) and they've been living that was for millions of years.

Do better morals lead to a better society? If not, what are morals for, if not to keep society running smoothly?

Speaking of which ...

It's because no other animals besides human beings are capable of conceiving of the concept of evil. Nothing is evil until we deem it as such.

Morals themselves are opinions that individuals hold, but the social consensus is what is generally referred to as "morality".

If morality is about public opinion then agreeability (or conformity perhaps) is better at keeping society running than what is right or wrong.

If for example everyone agrees that the death penalty is acceptable, there's not much fighting. If everyone agrees that it is unacceptable, there is not much fighting either. But if people cannot agree on whether the death penalty is acceptable or not, then fights break out.

Of course none of these examples actually prove whether the death penalty is moral or not. That's probably why such awful practices continued for so long - no-one thought they were wrong.

 

[Redac]

Redac: That's a really good point. Many 'barbaric' societies died out because they were conquered by others, who later banned these cruel practices. Animals practice things we would consider evil by human standards (rape, infanticide, murder etc.) and they've been living that was for millions of years.

That's not even why I wouldn't call animal actions evil. Even if I accepted some sort of source of evil, passing moral judgment on an animal that is incapable of such thinking is quite silly.

Do better morals lead to a better society? If not, what are morals for, if not to keep society running smoothly?

A proper code of ethics is more effective than any individual morality.

If morality is about public opinion then agreeability (or conformity perhaps) is better at keeping society running than what is right or wrong.

If for example everyone agrees that the death penalty is acceptable, there's not much fighting. If everyone agrees that it is unacceptable, there is not much fighting either. But if people cannot agree on whether the death penalty is acceptable or not, then fights break out.

Of course none of these examples actually prove whether the death penalty is moral or not. That's probably why such awful practices continued for so long - no-one thought they were wrong.

Herein lies the conflict between ethics and morality. A person's moral beliefs about what is right and what is wrong, however they are derived, do not always align with their society's ethics. This occurs to varying degrees, from slight variation to those who act completely outside what is acceptable in society.

The individuals in a society may collective shift one way or another in their moral values (for whatever reason), but the codes and ethics of society are much slower to change. If the difference in morality is split fairly evenly, as in the death penalty example, then it's pretty difficult to change anything.

This of course ignores outside factors. Those cannibalistic tribes likely didn't see anything immoral about their actions, but sometimes an outside entity forces a change in the rules that you have to adapt to.

 

[variant]

I disagree with this, in that I'd qualify the statement that "proper morality allows a society to progress". A lot of the progress of various societies has had little to do with their morality and a lot to do with things like subsistence patterns, geography, etc. Even the example of cannibalism isn't entirely accurate, as many smaller groups who practiced cannibalism did not fall apart because of it. Rather, colonial governments forced them to abandon it.

As notedstrangeperson pointed out these societies were, as I said, over-run.

The principle I am working on is evolution on a social scale so, of course chance and luck has a lot to do with it, but what I am saying is that those societies that organize themselves the best are going to persist and win in competition.

 

[Redac]

As notedstrangeperson pointed out these societies were, as I said, over-run.

The principle I am working on is evolution on a social scale so, of course chance and luck has a lot to do with it, but what I am saying is that those societies that organize themselves the best are going to persist and win in competition.

But those societies that were overrun for reasons that had nothing to do with their morals or the morals of those that overran them.

 

[variant]

But those societies that were overrun for reasons that had nothing to do with their morals or the morals of those that overran them.

Thats how you see it.

The way I see it none of the more advanced societys adopted things like canabalism.

This is not coincidence. As societys progress they stop burning animals on alters to their Gods. They start getting monotheistic and etherial with their religion. We can even see the evolution of religion and society if we look at the Bible carefully.

Every society that comes into contact with another will eventually be in conflict or competition with it in one way or another.

The ones with that are more complex and more organized generally win or gain more influence. It's not a perfect process, it is just the way things happen and the way morality evolves.

 

[Redac]

Thats how you see it.

The way I see it none of the more advanced societys adopted things like canabalism.

Which societies are you defining as "advanced" here? Places where monotheism exists? Because cannibalism still occurs despite the more "advanced" morality of monotheism being present.

This is not coincidence. As societys progress they stop burning animals on alters to their Gods. They start getting monotheistic and etherial with their religion. We can even see the evolution of religion and society if we look at the Bible carefully.

The then-Christian Roman Empire was in part brought down by a bunch of heathens from the north.Their moral progress didn't stop anything.

As a contrast, the Aztec pantheon expanded every time they conquered a new city and incorporated a new god. They were growing larger and more powerful, but were not headed toward monotheism. Their downfall had nothing to do with their polytheism or the morality related to it.

Every society that comes into contact with another will eventually be in conflict or competition with it in one way or another.

Competition does not necessarily mean conquest, though.

The ones with that are more complex and more organized generally win or gain more influence. It's not a perfect process, it is just the way things happen and the way morality evolves.

I'd argue that their morality has little to do with their complexity and advancement as a society, and even less to do with their advantages over others.

 

[Catherineanne]

This is probably because no animals other than human beings are capable of being evil.

A pet dog which attacks a small child and causes serious injury or worse will be put down, whether or not we regard its behaviour as evil. Really we don't care why they do it, they are just prevented from doing it again.

 

[variant]

Which societies are you defining as "advanced" here? Places where monotheism exists? Because cannibalism still occurs despite the more "advanced" morality of monotheism being present.

I am not defining it society is. Cannibals are fairly easily overtaken by non-cannibals so cannibalism is a problem.

I am saying monotheism is more complex because it has saturated every wildly successful culture of the modern age, and cannibalism seems to have had a much less successful track record.

The then-Christian Roman Empire was in part brought down by a bunch of heathens from the north.Their moral progress didn't stop anything.

Sure it did, and did so for centuries as their superior organization allowed their empire to expand past their ability to sustain it.

Eventually their society lost the spark that made it so good and they fell apart.

Corruption and the inability to sustain an empire built on conquest and expansion is a problem.

As a contrast, the Aztec pantheon expanded every time they conquered a new city and incorporated a new god. They were growing larger and more powerful, but were not headed toward monotheism. Their downfall had nothing to do with their polytheism or the morality related to it.

No, they didn't have time for that, it had to do with some monotheists who had invented guns and and intercontinental travel.

They were crushed by a handful of soldiers.

Isolation and ignorance are problems.

Competition does not necessarily mean conquest, though.

No, it doesn't even usually mean that. It's just the easiest and most illustrative example. The ideas of a civilization are in constant competition too.

I'd argue that their morality has little to do with their complexity and advancement as a society, and even less to do with their advantages over others.

Then explain why societies develop more stringent morality as the society becomes more complex.

What do YOU think is the driving force here?

 

[Redac]

I am not defining it society is. Cannibals are fairly easily overtaken by non-cannibals so cannibalism is a problem.

Yeah, but they're not overtaken because they're cannibals. They're overtaken due to a large technological gap.

I am saying monotheism is more complex because it has saturated every wildly successful culture of the modern age, and cannibalism seems to have had a much less successful track record.

Japanese culture is not at all saturated with monotheism, but I'd say they've been fairly successful. Shinto (and all its mixtures with Buddhism by now) is not exactly simple, either. I guess it depends on where you set the bar.

As for the cannibalism, well, the Aztecs practiced some ritual cannibalism during human sacrifice. It wasn't a huge part of anyone's diet, but it was there. As for how good its track record would have been as the centuries wore on, we we'll never know. It wasn't exactly detrimental up till that point, though.

Sure it did, and did so for centuries as their superior organization allowed their empire to expand past their ability to sustain it.

Eventually their society lost the spark that made it so good and they fell apart.

Corruption and the inability to sustain an empire built on conquest and expansion is a problem.

Right around the rise of Christianity, interestingly enough. Though the Eastern Empire managed to make it a lot further, the Western Empire spend a little less than 200 years Christian before collapse.

No, they didn't have time for that, it had to do with some monotheists who had invented guns and and intercontinental travel.

With technology taken from a bunch of Chinese pagans.

They were crushed by a handful of soldiers.

Not quite. The Spaniards had a few things going for them, and certainly did NOT conquer the Aztecs on their own.

First, they didn't do it on their own. They went around and stirred up anger amongst other tribes and cities in the region. They went about manipulating the Aztec's enemies into various alliances and used all those different alliances to their advantage. Just from memory, I want to say the biggest contributor here was Tlaxcala. There would have been massive armies of natives marching with the Spanish.

Second, disease. Cortes arrived in Mexico in 1519, but didn't actually lay siege to the capital until 1521. By the time Cortes waltzed on into Tenochtitlan, most of the city, and indeed much of the countryside, had been ravaged by smallpox and the starvation that followed.

Then of course there was the almost perfect timing of the landing, which coincided with when they were expecting the return of a Quetzalcoatl from the east. That threw them off for a little while before they figured out that these were just more men.

Finally, the hierarchy of the empire itself lent to the Spanish stepping in and replacing the guys at the top and largely letting business continue as usual.

Had the Spanish not walked into a sort of perfect storm of circumstances, the Aztecs would have thrown them back into the sea.

Isolation and ignorance are problems.

Only when some outside group takes it upon themselves to come along and "liberate" you.

Then explain why societies develop more stringent morality as the society becomes more complex.

What do YOU think is the driving force here?

A more complex society requires a more complex set of ethics to operate effectively. The Aztec Empire was fairly large and complex; the capital city of Tenochtitlan was easily larger than just about every city in Europe. Their morality did not stop them from becoming complex, and their morality was not the cause of their downfall.

 

[Nooj]

No, they didn't have time for that, it had to do with some monotheists who had invented guns and and intercontinental travel.

They were crushed by a handful of soldiers.

As Redac said, that's not true. Without native allies who comprised the majority of the opposing force, the Spanish under Cortez would have gone nowhere (and indeed, numerous other Spanish expeditions failed utterly). If you look at another American empire, it took the technologically superior Spanish over 30 years to conquer the Inkas.

I don't think cannibalism or polytheism has anything to do with the success of empires.

 

[keith99]

I have 2 dogs. I've had others. Dogs do not kill their own kind for food. Generally they do not needlessly kill or injure their own kind. In fact I could make the case that dogs fare far better in following their 'rules' than does man.

Their rules do not generally hold for other animals. By default all other animals are potential food. Though dogs can admit others to their pack, and such animals then get a status similar to a dog (God help anything trying to hurt my Alpha dog's cat).

Not unlike people and far from a double standard.

 

[GrayAngel]

The other thought just occurred to me that you're simply making a good argument for the superior consistency of the morality of vegetarianism.

Why would you find this so distasteful/unthinkable?

Why because of human primacy of course, which your religion has as a basic principle. It would also make sense that religions that enforce basic biological tenancies like human primacy, and that the basic gut tenancy is questionable indeed.

Actually, I am a vegetarian, but not for moral reasons. There are some people, though, who do believe that animals should be treated the same as people. I forget his name, but somebody coined the term "speciesist."

In a sense it still is. Natural selection picks off whoever is less suited for their enviroment. It just so happens we have created a different enviroment, much like how the aligators jaws are a different enviroment.

It seems you are asking why do we work so hard on taking care of eachother and thus twarting natural selection. But that is not what happens, we change the enviroment that we have to adapt in to one where breaking a leg is not fatal. No different from changing the enviroment to one were the transport from nest to river is not fatal.

You might ask if our strategy is too good, there is barely anything now that would prevent you from being reasonably succesfull. Short of being born in africa and drawing a short straw.

Somebody made the observation once that are human societies work opposed to evolution. The people who are most successful tend to have fewer children than people who are less successful. In nature, it's the other way around.

Eugenics came from this observation and said that the government should step and try to slow down the reproduction of the poor and encourage reproduction among the upper class. Evolutionary-wise, this makes sense. Unless you've inherited your wealth from your parents, you likely worked your way up because of some above average trait, such as intelligence, athleticism, or even physical appearance.

However, I wouldn't ever support such an idea, because I'd rather not be treated like an animal.

The question you are trying to ask is.. why do we consider it murder to kill our neighbour, but cooking if we kill and fry our pig.

Its simple, because I do not want to get killed and eaten, generally speaking nobody does but the creatures that are best capable of killing me are my fellow men. So I make a deal with the people around me, you dont kill&eat me and I dont do it to you. Its ultimately quite selfish but it gets the job done of keeping everybody safe from being killed&eaten by another human.

Also I have to eat, I cant eat other humans cause they will be angry but animals are free game since i never made that no killing&eating deal with them. Now maybe id like to make that deal with a lion, but lions are not very good communicators.

I sort of covered this already, but I'll explore it a little bit more.

Here, it sounds like you're promoting the idea that morals are relative to society. If society says something is unethical, then it's unethical. But aren't some things evil in their own right? Is murder only wrong because society says it is?

Or is it about what's good for society? There may be some thing we'd say would be good for society, but still are ethically wrong.

Because, as you said, humans tend to consider themselves an advanced species.

Advanced in what? There are many species that are more advanced than we are in some respects. Some are faster, stronger, and have abilities we don't have, such as flight, echo location, super smell, etc. Why is it we've decided that the advances of humans are more important?

Would we consider Spiderman of greater importance than normal people? (Ironically, this is a view I've heard argued by comic book villains many times.) Or if it's only intelligence that matters, is Stephen Hawking a more valuable individual than the rest of us?

 

[Redac]

Actually, I am a vegetarian, but not for moral reasons. There are some people, though, who do believe that animals should be treated the same as people. I forget his name, but somebody coined the term "speciesist."

Isn't that usually what someone is called when they hold their own species as being superior? Like, a "racist" is not someone who thinks that all races are equal.

Somebody made the observation once that are human societies work opposed to evolution. The people who are most successful tend to have fewer children than people who are less successful. In nature, it's the other way around.

Eugenics came from this observation and said that the government should step and try to slow down the reproduction of the poor and encourage reproduction among the upper class. Evolutionary-wise, this makes sense. Unless you've inherited your wealth from your parents, you likely worked your way up because of some above average trait, such as intelligence, athleticism, or even physical appearance.

However, I wouldn't ever support such an idea, because I'd rather not be treated like an animal.

The problem here is that people tend to equate evolutionary success with other types of success. If you can create fertile, viable offspring, and they can in turn manage to create offspring of their own, you are an evolutionary success by definition.

I sort of covered this already, but I'll explore it a little bit more.

Here, it sounds like you're promoting the idea that morals are relative to society. If society says something is unethical, then it's unethical. But aren't some things evil in their own right? Is murder only wrong because society says it is?

I know this isn't directed toward me, but I felt like chiming in. Murder is, by definition, illegal. Society is what deems something to be illegal, so yes, society is what says that murder is wrong.

As for the intrinsic "evil" of it, I can't speak for Exiledoomsayer, but I'd say that there is no intrinsic evil in it. That does not make it acceptable; it only means I see no evil in it in-and-of-itself. The fact that murder is generally detrimental to society is one of the main reasons that societies discourage it.

Advanced in what? There are many species that are more advanced than we are in some respects. Some are faster, stronger, and have abilities we don't have, such as flight, echo location, super smell, etc. Why is it we've decided that the advances of humans are more important?

Well, the argument I'd put forth is that we can make up for physical shortcomings with our intelligence. We can create machines that are faster and stronger than any animal; we can create airplanes and sonar (echolocation); we can even domesticate these animals and use them for things we can't do.

I'm not entirely sure I buy any of that as making us intrinsically "better" than anything else, though.

 

[Nooj]

Is murder only wrong because society says it is?

Murder is not wrong, murder is illegal.

However, there are a number of qualifications.

If your definition of wrong is illegality, then murder is wrong and so is driving on the wrong side of the road and drinking before the minimum age.

The way I consider wrong is 'something I would not do'. So murder is wrong to me in that sense of the word, but other people seem to use wrong in another sense, that it is a moral judgement that exists apart from the human perspective. I don't agree with that though.

Somebody made the observation once that are human societies work opposed to evolution. The people who are most successful tend to have fewer children than people who are less successful. In nature, it's the other way around.

Well some species actually have a reproductive strategy where they maximise their attention on only a few offspring. That seems to work for us. In desperate times, we have many children to offset the real risk of them dying. In good times, we have fewer children. This seems to be a good evolutionary strategy.

Interesting to note though, what makes the successful people successful? According to our social standards, lots of money, a good education, a big house, lots of food, happiness and so forth. But evolutionarily, the successful people are people who pass on their genes. And so you can a successful multi-billionaire, but if you don't have kids, you're a miserable failure in evolution.

 

[quatona]

Advanced in what?

What do I know? It was the premise of the thread, and you were the one introducing it.
Possibly "advanced" e.g. in exactly what you are asking about: Humans can develop and communicate moral standards?

There are many species that are more advanced than we are in some respects. Some are faster, stronger, and have abilities we don't have, such as flight, echo location, super smell, etc. Why is it we've decided that the advances of humans are more important?

Because other species aren´t even able to make such considerations - at least to our best knowledge.

Would we consider Spiderman of greater importance than normal people? (Ironically, this is a view I've heard argued by comic book villains many times.) Or if it's only intelligence that matters, is Stephen Hawking a more valuable individual than the rest of us?

I´m not sure what your point is anymore. Initially you tried to point out a perceived contradiction between the idea that we are an advanced species and holding ourselves to higher standards than other species. I see no contradiction there.
Now you are questioning the premises of your own question.
I guess if you think we are less advanced than other species it would make sense for you to hold ourselves to lower standards or something. But the premise of your question was 'if we are but an advanced species'.

Personally, I don´t care much about being advanced or not. What I know is that I am able to come up with ethical/moral considerations, and that my fellow species members display the same ability.
So far I haven´t had a member of another species telling me about their moral/ethical ideas, and I don´t know how to communicate mine to them.
Maybe you can tell me how I can practically hold dolphins, elephants, ducks or spiders to moral/ethical standards. What would that look like, practically? How can it be done?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Long post is looooooooooong ...

The principle I am working on is evolution on a social scale so, of course chance and luck has a lot to do with it, but what I am saying is that those societies that organize themselves the best are going to persist and win in competition.

As Redac and Nooj pointed out, the infamously savage Aztecs managed to rule most of mesoamerica and were defeated by the Spanish because of disease and lack of technology. However ...

Even by their standards, other tribes considered the Aztecs barbaric and cruel. Nevertheless by the Aztecs managed to have one of the largest empires in mesoamerican history. Their sheer savagry was one of the reasons they were so successful. They defeated their enemies using fear and hatred.

However, because they were so feared and hated, when the Spanish came along the other tribes joined them - hoping they would overthrow the Aztecs and start a new era of peace. When the Aztecs saw them coming they didn't bother fighting back (which is really saying something, since fighting was pretty much all they did). They were defeated within two years. History repeats itself, and the rule of the Spanish turned out to be equally barbaric.

So - the Aztecs were successful because they were so vicious. But this same viciousness made them hated, and lead to their downfall in the end. Does this prove (or disprove) the idea that more advanced societies are more 'moral'?

-----------------------------

More like, humans decide what is good and evil.

Morals themselves are opinions that individuals hold, but the social consensus is what is generally referred to as "morality".

The individuals in a society may collective shift one way or another in their moral values (for whatever reason), but the codes and ethics of society are much slower to change. If the difference in morality is split fairly evenly, as in the death penalty example, then it's pretty difficult to change anything.

Murder is not wrong, murder is illegal.

However, there are a number of qualifications.

If your definition of wrong is illegality, then murder is wrong and so is driving on the wrong side of the road and drinking before the minimum age.

The way I consider wrong is 'something I would not do'. So murder is wrong to me in that sense of the word, but other people seem to use wrong in another sense, that it is a moral judgement that exists apart from the human perspective. I don't agree with that though.

I've noticed most of the people who argue that "Morality is what is legal / what society believes is right" are atheists. This seems odd to me ... most atheists I've met value free-thinking above mindless conformity. Most of us also seem to agree that how successful a society is has little to do with morality and more to do with organization.

Theoretically then, wouldn't we be better off just following what the church or government says is right? It would be moral (since morality is based on law and compliance) and society runs more smoothly if when we try not to think for ourselves.

-----------------------------
(This is just a minor point)

This is not coincidence. As societys progress they stop burning animals on alters to their Gods. They start getting monotheistic and etherial with their religion. We can even see the evolution of religion and society if we look at the Bible carefully.

This is a mistake. Monotheism is not part of the "normal" pregression of society for two reasons:

a) All of the monotheistic religions (with one possible exception) are related. If they were part of the normal progression of society we would expect monotheism to be established independantly again and again - this isn't the case. They all have one common origin.
b) Before the introduction of Christianity in the 14th entury, the Far East - despite their great civilisations - showed no signs of monotheism. Their beliefs are a form of pantheism.

We think society becoming monotheistic is the norm because belief in one God is so common. But in reality it's actually quite an unusual belief.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I've noticed most of the people who argue that "Morality is what is legal / what society believes is right" are atheists. This seems odd to me ... most atheists I've met value free-thinking above mindless conformity. Most of us also seem to agree that how successful a society is has little to do with morality and more to do with organization.

People like "mindless conformity". It's all well and good have some idealised form of ethics, but when you look at reality, it's basically a consensus that eventually becomes part of a culture, drilled into people from birth. That's how humanity works. Morality is part of organisation - what do you think laws are?