The Changing Moral Landscape

[Quid est Veritas?]

But isn't the shift in practice also due to a shift in perception? Perception of gravity or acceptability of something? Isn't that a real shift? I'd imagine the slaves would argue that it's real enough, since it's the difference between their liberation, or not.

I think actions matter a heck of a lot more here than people's perceptions of the absolute nature of their unacted-on convictions.

How so? Slavery was always a moral evil. Even RE Lee that fought with the Confederacy, and owned slaves, called it an evil. Pope Gregory that bought slaves thought it evil. The Morality of Slavery was never in doubt, but whether men should tolerate it or not, as a necessary or inevitable evil. The same with capital punishment: forgiveness and mercy are the Moral ideals, not retribution, but we argue it necessary as deterrence or as Just punishment to maintain society.

No real shift in morality occured in my mind. If you equate Principle only with Action, then sure. But that is denying the very existence of a Moral Code, that only one's action denotes one's morals - as if humans aren't inherently hypocrites. It is fine, You shall know them by their Fruits, but that merely places you squarely in one of my two camps, and me in the other.

 

[Paidiske]

Well, humans are hypocrites, clearly and often. But do you really think it's enough to think something is wrong, but do it anyway, and then lay claim to morality? I don't think so.

 

[Tom 1]

The Changing Moral Landscape

Morality as defined by the Oxford Dictionary :

1. Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
2. A particular system of values and principles of conduct.
3. The extent to which an action is right or wrong.

A couple of days ago I was thinking about the range of significant moral changes which have taken place within Western, nominally Christian, society over time. I started to make a list of changes, but it became obvious that “moral change” was a slippery concept. At first, I went looking for things which were once seen as wrong which are now seen as right (or vice versa) but soon realised that this was an oversimplification.

While a specific behaviour can shift between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ it can also become (or cease to be) morally ‘neutral’. There are degrees of rightness or wrongness allowing for a shift from (say) absolutely wrong to trivially wrong. There can be shifts where a behaviour becomes acceptable (or unacceptable) in certain circumstances. A behaviour can be seen as wrong in secular society but right according to Christian morality. Some moral shifts are works in progress while others are, more or less, settled. Moral issues can shift from being definitely ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ to ‘unresolved’.

Armed with this new appreciation I managed to list around 20 instances of ‘moral change’. I’m sure there are many more.

• Bearing in mind the range of possible states covered by ‘moral shift’, can you add any items to the list I’ve started (see below)?

I’m looking for things which have noticeably changed their status within the continuum of ‘morality’.​

• Can you see any patterns within the list?

For example: Are there common factors between types of behaviour which are gaining/losing moral ground? ‘Common factors’ might include things like new knowledge, ideological shifts or technological advances. Is there a direction to change?​

The ’Moral Change’ list - so far:

• Unwed motherhood
  
• Sex outside of marriage
  
• Homosexuality
  
• Allowable killing
  
• Same sex marriage
  
• Same sex parenting
  
• Working mothers
  
• Slavery
  
• Masturbation
  
• Treatment of non-combatants (in warfare)
  
• Racial discrimination
  
• Gender discrimination
  
• Religious discrimination
  
• Transgenderism
  
• Colonialism
  
• Treatment of religious non conformists
  
• White superiority
  
• Anti-Semitism
  
• Abortion
  
• Capital punishment in general
  
• Specific forms of capital punishment (burning, beheading, drawing)
  
• Euthanasia/assisted suicide
  
• Child marriage
  
• Age of consent
  
• ?

EDIT- the following red entries added as a result of Poster suggestions

• Divorce
  
• Pornography
  
• Drug and alcohol usage
  
• Contraception
  
• Crime and punishment
• Modesty in dress

A Plea
I know that many of you have strong opinions about morality. This thread is intended as a reasoned discussion of moral change. Please don’t use it as a Forum for arguing the (im)morality of certain behaviours, groups or individuals.

OB

Divorce is an interesting one. One one side you have the recognition of the truly unbearable situations people can find themselves in, spousal abuse and the like, and the acceptance of these kind of situations as making divorce advisable if not necessary, and on the other the creation of unrealistic/immature expectations of marriage through rom coms and the like that lead to people not liking it much in the long term.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Again, I think that's over-simplified. Even when people believed in God-given social hierarchy, they had ethical principles which ascribed genuine value to each person (I remember being shocked on reading some stuff from this era which praised condescension as a virtue; because it's point was that being willing to put yourself at the level of someone "lower" than you, and thus not treating them as inferior, was an expression of genuine virtue etc etc).

On the other hand, even in democracy where everyone is, theoretically, equal, we find plenty of ways to structure society such that this equality is a complete fiction. And plenty of people willing to defend those structures as God's will as well.

I think what shifted was the way different principles - already both live within ethical thought - were applied and emphasised within the socio-political realm.

It was a simplification to explain a principle, yes. Looking for split ends, here. Anyway, Feudalism was more than that. Even the afterlife was stratified, as in Dante. You must never think the ancients thought the same as us, though there were ideas of "When Adam plowed and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?" of John Ball. The difference though, between a Lord and a peasant was very real, and certainly considered inherently so. This shows the shift - Democracies consider all equal fundamentally, but erect hierarchy; the mediaevals considered hierarchy fundamental, and then tried to level.

Well, humans are hypocrites, clearly and often. But do you really think it's enough to think something is wrong, but do it anyway, and then lay claim to morality? I don't think so.

True, just because you think something is wrong does not make you Moral. No one ever said that. Rousseau abandoned his illegitimate children while lecturing on morality, for instance. However, what you do, and what you consider Right or Moral, certainly aren't the same.

 

[Occams Barber]

It might just be that it's Friday afternoon, but I feel like I'm not following, OB.

If something that was considered okay is no longer (eg: exploitation of the environment leading to extinction, desertification, etc), how is that not an example of the sort of shift you're talking about?

The difference lies in whether it's Okayness was a moral judgement. For a judgement to be classified as moral or immoral it must have a moral alternative. This didn't happen until the environmental lobby declared that there was a morally justifiable alternative to the environmental status quo. At that point the environment became a moral issue.

Moral issues begin when someone sees a moral alternative.
OB

 

[Paidiske]

I just think you're trying to set up a dichotomy that doesn't really exist. But it's possible that I'm not really understanding your train of thought.

 

[Paidiske]

The difference lies in whether it's Okayness was a moral judgement. For a judgement to be classified as moral or immoral it must have a moral alternative. This didn't happen until the environmental lobby declared that there was a morally justifiable alternative to the environmental status quo. At that point the environment became a moral issue.

Moral issues begin when someone sees a moral alternative.
OB

I'm still not understanding why this isn't a moral shift. If people didn't once see a moral alternative, and now they do, how is that not a shift?

 

[Occams Barber]

OK folks - we've had an interesting conversation which took us way off topic.

Let's get back to first principles:

1. Is there a instance of a significant moral shift (in Western, nominally Christian society) which is not mentioned on the (updated) OP list?

2. Are there common factors between the types of behaviour which have gained or lost moral ground? ‘Common factors’ might include things like new knowledge, ideological shifts or technological advances. Is there a direction to change?
OB

 

[Occams Barber]

I'm still not understanding why this isn't a moral shift. If people didn't once see a moral alternative, and now they do, how is that not a shift?

Sure - there is a shift from having no moral concept to a moralised version of environmentalism. Moving from something which did not exist (i.e., a moral version of environmentalism) is not a shift. If there was no earlier moral version there was nothing to shift from.

It's the genesis of a brand new, shiny moral concept.

But I'm asking about shifts in existing moral concepts.
OB

 

[Paidiske]

I think that something which was not previously morally charged, becoming morally charged, is a pretty significant shift; but hey, I can leave it too. Clearly I'm just not getting anywhere with this discussion at all (which is a shame, because it's a form of distraction from a sermon which is being similarly stubbornly uninspired).

 

[Occams Barber]

I think that something which was not previously morally charged, becoming morally charged, is a pretty significant shift; but hey, I can leave it too. Clearly I'm just not getting anywhere with this discussion at all (which is a shame, because it's a form of distraction from a sermon which is being similarly stubbornly uninspired).

How about sermonising on the virtues of patience ? (particularly when talking with grumpy old atheists)
OB

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Are there common factors between the types of behaviour which have gained or lost moral ground? ‘Common factors’ might include things like new knowledge, ideological shifts or technological advances. Is there a direction to change?

I think a frequent factor is an increase in the value placed on the Individual. In a system based on the community or the societal, individual freedoms or decisions are given less importance. Once we shift to what 'I' want, we get where we think a person's decisions on sexuality, or marriage, or whatever, are paramount to traditional norms. Further, if we break down corporate identity, it becomes less justifiable to hold other members of the group to the actions of a part thereof. Hence divorce, racial superiority, etc. Ultimately, this just rehashed the argument of Herd Morality vs the Ubermensch of Nietzsche though, so is the direction the West has been going philosophically. Hence Dostoeyevsky, on whether I am responsible for everyone else as well, as Father Zosima maintained, or Raskolnikov's Axe. I am again oversimplifying here Paidiske, but a lot of moral change lies in repudiating traditional forms and doing so at behest of 'my' own desire, what 'I' want or what is best for 'me' .

 

[Occams Barber]

I think a frequent factor is an increase in the value placed on the Individual. In a system based on the community or the societal, individual freedoms or decisions are given less importance. Once we shift to what 'I' want, we get where we think a person's decisions on sexuality, or marriage, or whatever, are paramount to traditional norms. Further, if we break down corporate identity, it becomes less justifiable to hold other members of the group to the actions of a part thereof. Hence divorce, racial superiority, etc. Ultimately, this just rehashed the argument of Herd Morality vs the Ubermensch of Nietzsche though, so is the direction the West has been going philosophically. Hence Dostoeyevsky, on whether I am responsible for everyone else as well, as Father Zosima maintained, or Raskolnikov's Axe. I am again oversimplifying here Paidiske, but a lot of moral change lies in repudiating traditional forms and doing so at behest of 'my' own desire, what 'I' want or what is best for 'me' .

You're replying to my post - not Paidiske's.

Any cursory examination of the cultural shifts currently listed in the OP will show that societal movement has been towards the community.

I've been through the list to see where society is generally at and it's a direct repudiation of your selfishness theory.

Current societal attitudes disagree with slavery; poor treatment of non-combatants; racial, gender and religious discrimination: mistreating of non-conformists. Society also rejects white superiority and anti Semitism. US society is mixed on capital punishment but outside the US there's little argument. Nobody wants a return to beheading. We're all agreed that child marriage is wrong and that the age of consent should be set at a reasonable level.

On other issues in the list society has moved from considering them wrong to a relatively neutral position.

Believe it or not many of your 'traditional' (Christian?) norms are considered damaging.
OB

 

[ThievingMagpie]

Thanks Paidiske
I see environmental issues as a tangle of scientific fact and moral concern. The scientific fact side is obvious. The moral side involves arguments about how and to what extent we should respond to the scientific fact.

I don't see environmental concerns as a shift in morality. What I do see is the environment becoming a moral issue where this wasn't previously the case. What I think we're seeing is not a change in moral philosophy, relevant to the environment, but a new moral issue.

Assuming the scientific facts, it's even debatable if the environment argument is moral or ideological (assuming it's possible to separate ideology from morality)
OB

As a more focused subset of this, could we add the idea of animal rights to the list. Its arguably patchy and applied inconsistently but perception of the rights of animals, particular those that are sentient has changed hugely over the last few hundred years.

Even where animals are slaughtered, we introduce laws on duty of care, and certain animals we consider completely "off grounds" like whales, elephants and chimpanzees, usually because of our understanding of their intellectual or emotional capacity. It's quite messy because some of this reaction will also be linked to endangerment - whales particularly so.

But the fur trade has almost entirely gone, we legislate against abuse of animals, we legislate against practices that increase animal suffering and these are largely moral judgements that have evolved over time.

 

[Occams Barber]

As a more focused subset of this, could we add the idea of animal rights to the list. Its arguably patchy and applied inconsistently but perception of the rights of animals, particular those that are sentient has changed hugely over the last few hundred years.

Even where animals are slaughtered, we introduce laws on duty of care, and certain animals we consider completely "off grounds" like whales, elephants and chimpanzees, usually because of our understanding of their intellectual or emotional capacity. It's quite messy because some of this reaction will also be linked to endangerment - whales particularly so.

But the fur trade has almost entirely gone, we legislate against abuse of animals, we legislate against practices that increase animal suffering and these are largely moral judgements that have evolved over time.

@Paidiske @ThievingMagpie

Thanks TM
I made the mistake of going back and re-reading my own words in the OP and realised that I was arguing against myself when disagreeing with Paidiske on the suitability of environmental issues for inclusion in the OP Moral Change list.

In the OP I talked about issues, which were originally morally neutral, shifting into the right or wrong camp. This is exactly what's happened with environmental issues and also with animal rights as discussed by @ThievingMagpie above. I still believe that both issues are 'new' morality however I accept that their newness doesn't disqualify them for listing as moral changes.

I'll put both issues into the list as 'Animal Rights' and Environmental 'something' (I'm still looking for the right terminology).
OB

 

[KCfromNC]

- Divine right of kings has kinda fallen by the wayside
- Plural marriage has also fallen out of favor even in groups which supported it within the past few centuries
- Dancing is more moral than it used to be, at least among some groups

I had more, but I'm not sure whether they fit or not. In many cases (e.g. women wearing pants) it is hard to tease out morality from whims or fashion preference. Which kinda points to a particular view of morality being more in line with how it is applied, in my opinion.

 

[Paidiske]

@Occams Barber Ah, thank goodness, I thought I was going mad!

 

[Occams Barber]

- Divine right of kings has kinda fallen by the wayside
- Plural marriage has also fallen out of favor even in groups which supported it within the past few centuries
- Dancing is more moral than it used to be, at least among some groups

I had more, but I'm not sure whether they fit or not. In many cases (e.g. women wearing pants) it is hard to tease out morality from whims or fashion preference. Which kinda points to a particular view of morality being more in line with how it is applied, in my opinion.

I agree about the Divine Right of Kings. There was a time when this was an article of faith.

In the OP I talked about moral change within Western, nominally Christian, societies. Was a dancing ban applied broadly or was it confined to a couple of Christian sects?

Was there a time when plural marriage was generally morally acceptable within Western society or was it limited to a small minority interest?

I actually recall when women were first allowed to wear pants to work - my then wife was one of the first to get into a pants suit. I can't recall the reasoning behind the ban. Was it moral or practical?
OB

 

[Occams Barber]

@Occams Barber Ah, thank goodness, I thought I was going mad!

Don't get too excited.

I said you were right. I can't guarantee your sanity.
OB

 

[Paidiske]

I said you were right.
OB

I'll take it! And in the interim the sermon is finished. Maybe I can finish work before midnight tonight...