Without a moral foundation, you're only left with dysfunction

[Spiribala]

You almost make it sound like it ever had.
There have always been and there still are broadly shared abstract ideals, and there have always been wildly diverse opinions how to achieve them.

As far as I know the most foundational moral ideal has always been the freedom to individually pursue happiness. Actually, it seems to be you who is abandoning this moral ideal.

I'm actually for a government who tends towards a more libertarian view of things, because I believe individuals pursuing their own purposes is so incredibly important - being inclusive of a variety of beliefs should be the foundational goal of government. However, I think what you can often see is that government power can afford to be weaker, when their are common moral ideals that the vast majority hold to. In other words, when there is a implicit cultural agreement to do things in a certain way, you don't need strong coercive regulations and a bigger more forceful government to do those things in place of culture. With less cultural agreement then, you have two or more competing sides trying to enforce their vision of what society should be through laws. This is what seems to be happening right now, because so many people no longer think their is enough common moral ground to convince people through argument, so the hammer of the law becomes the preferred tool of choice.

 

[Spiribala]

It's a problem, yes, but I'm not sure why you think political divisions are a new problem. We fought a Civil War, remember.

I don't think I said this is a new thing, but I think it's getting worse. The Civil War is a good example of how democracy can fail if the views of large numbers of people feel the political process is broken. Obviously, a civil war is not going to happen. However, at various times in the not too distant past you have had examples of domestic terrorism - say, for example, violence protesting the Vietnam war or abortion clinics. You could possibly start seeing things more of that nature.

 

[quatona]

I'm actually for a government who tends towards a more libertarian view of things, because I believe individuals pursuing their own purposes is so incredibly important - being inclusive of a variety of beliefs should be the foundational goal of government. However, I think what you can often see is that government power can afford to be weaker, when their are common moral ideals that the vast majority hold to. In other words, when there is a implicit cultural agreement to do things in a certain way, you don't need strong coercive regulations and a bigger more forceful government to do those things in place of culture. With less cultural agreement then, you have two or more competing sides trying to enforce their vision of what society should be through laws. This is what seems to be happening right now, because so many people no longer think their is enough common moral ground to convince people through argument, so the hammer of the law becomes the preferred tool of choice.

Actually, I do not really see the necessity for a "hammer of law" (or "coercive regulations or a forceful government) in a society that defines itself as individualstic and pluralistic. Not until people feel that their personal pursuit of happiness requires the restriction of another person´s liberty (which is, by its very nature, an idea contrary to the principles of said nation). IOW until people actually and explicitly demand a bigger government to prevent moral plurality (which, ironically, are currently often those who have a tradition in propagating "small government!").
But, yes, of course: If everyone involved agrees on everything there will be less conflict. If that´s what you are getting at.
Like, pursuing an agreeable way how to spend the tax money is the easier the more people agree how it should be spent.
I also agree with you that there can be a point where two persons have too little common ground for a productive discussion. Then again, there have always been irreconcilable basic views on pretty much everything.
It is debatable, though, if "less diversity -> less conflict" actually make a better society, per se. A society is a living system, it evolves, it develops, everyone wants it to improve

 

[Spiribala]

Actually, I do not really see the necessity for a "hammer of law" (or "coercive regulations or a forceful government) in a society that defines itself as individualstic and pluralistic. Not until people feel that their personal pursuit of happiness requires the restriction of another person´s liberty (which is, by its very nature, an idea contrary to the principles of said nation). IOW until people actually and explicitly demand a bigger government to prevent moral plurality (which, ironically, are currently often those who have a tradition in propagating "small government!").

Well, I agree that it's not necessary. But I think the nature of our two party system and the incentives it brings with it, makes it more likely. As I said before, their just isn't that big of a moderate segment in society, so it makes more political sense (though no sense from a good of society perspective) to forget about the few in the middle and work towards helping your base, demonizing the other side and making laws that help your side and hurt the other.

 

[quatona]

Well, I agree that it's not necessary. But I think the nature of our two party system and the incentives it brings with it, makes it more likely. As I said before, their just isn't that big of a moderate segment in society, so it makes more political sense (though no sense from a good of society perspective) to forget about the few in the middle and work towards helping your base, demonizing the other side and making laws that help your side and hurt the other.

I am afraid I can not really relate (doesn´t necessarily mean that it isn´t an accurate depiction of the antagonistic American way of approaching these things).
Personally, the causes I speak up for are rarely if ever benefitting "my base" or "my side":, even less meant to "hurt anyone": I´m not homeless, I am not unemployed, I am not homosexual, I am not a refugee, I am not part of an ethnic or religious minority etc.

 

[Cearbhall]

I don't think I said this is a new thing, but I think it's getting worse.

Are there statistics that are making you think this? I would agree that the political opinions of the public might be more polarized now than they've been in the past 10 years or so, based on the numbers I've seen, but I don't know about long-term.

 

[Murby]

In your opinion, I suppose that would be moral. Regarding morality, opinions are all we have.

On the level you're suggesting, everything would be opinion.... even gravity.. From that perspective, one could say that morals are opinions.. but they're opinions on what is good for society, community, etc.

 

[jayem]

Are there statistics that are making you think this? I would agree that the political opinions of the public might be more polarized now than they've been in the past 10 years or so, based on the numbers I've seen, but I don't know about long-term.

In the longer perspective, I think whatever commonality there was in the mid-20th century was the anomaly. (And this was likely a product of WW2, when the fight against a clearly defined external enemy--militant fascism--was a potent force for national unity. It was carried over into the 50s by the perception of expansionist communism as a threat.) But for the greater part of our history, we've been sharply divided as to political and cultural values. And as you correctly note, it's been much worse than now.

 

[Gordon Wright]

I disagree. Society would be crumbing if this were the case.

Society isn't doing all that great. It certainly seems to be crumbling in places.

 

[Spiribala]

Are there statistics that are making you think this? I would agree that the political opinions of the public might be more polarized now than they've been in the past 10 years or so, based on the numbers I've seen, but I don't know about long-term.

Here's a data regarding the last 2 decades or so:

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

 

[Cearbhall]

In the longer perspective, I think whatever commonality there was in the mid-20th century was the anomaly. (And this was likely a product of WW2, when the fight against a clearly defined external enemy--militant fascism--was a potent force for national unity. It was carried over into the 50s by the perception of expansionist communism as a threat.)

Yes, I agree. It's a more long-term example of the patriotism on 9/12.

Society isn't doing all that great. It certainly seems to be crumbling in places.

I was referring to the U.S. Though, on a global scale, things are getting better as well.

 

[quatona]

I don't think I said this is a new thing, but I think it's getting worse.

Compared to when? Just so we get a better idea: When do you think it was best?

The Civil War is a good example of how democracy can fail if the views of large numbers of people feel the political process is broken.

Well, a civil war is actually part of "the political process" (not one that we would desire exactly, though).
But at least we now know that you can think of a time when it was "worse" than today, by your criteria.

However, at various times in the not too distant past you have had examples of domestic terrorism - say, for example, violence protesting the Vietnam war

Personally, I am a proponent of absolute non-violence. But when - in view of a pointless, extremely violent war - you identify the actual problem as a disagreement resulting in (comparatively mild) violent protests i have problems following you.

You could possibly start seeing things more of that nature.

i am confused. You say things are getting worse. In support of that hypothesis you point to the Civil War (long time ago, by standards of American history), the Vietnam War (long ago) and very opinionated disagreements (in rare cases resulting in violence) about abortions (not exactly a brand new phenomenon).
I´m honestly wondering what time you have in mind as the positive comparandum when you say "things are getting worse".

 

[Ana the Ist]

On the level you're suggesting, everything would be opinion.... even gravity.. From that perspective, one could say that morals are opinions.. but they're opinions on what is good for society, community, etc.

Oh no...not everything. See, even if you didn't believe in my opinion that gravity exists...I could demonstrate that it does.

That's gonna be really tough to do with objective morals (by tough, I mean I don't even know where you'd begin).

 

[Murby]

Oh no...not everything. See, even if you didn't believe in my opinion that gravity exists...I could demonstrate that it does.

That's gonna be really tough to do with objective morals (by tough, I mean I don't even know where you'd begin).

Its an argument that could go on forever.... But to say that morals are just opinions is incorrect as I view things. That's not to say that people have different opinions about morality, but it's not the same as saying morals are just opinions.

On the level you are suggesting, since we've sort of locked gravity into the debate, even gravity is an opinion because we don't really know what causes it.. or I should probably rephrase that and say that we really don't know what it is.. we only know an effect that we describe it to be. Point in fact, what most people generally refer to as gravity, is actually a curvature of space-time affected by mass distribution. So, you can't really prove that gravity exists.. you can only prove that there is an effect you label to be gravity.

The debate over this is a complex one and to take part in it, folks have to agree to some simple boundaries. You stated that morality is based on opinion.. I'm saying that's not true.. while certain people have different opinions about morality, what is moral or not does not change because of them.

 

[Locutus]

I am afraid I can not really relate (doesn´t necessarily mean that it isn´t an accurate depiction of the antagonistic American way of approaching these things).
Personally, the causes I speak up for are rarely if ever benefitting "my base" or "my side":, even less meant to "hurt anyone": I´m not homeless, I am not unemployed, I am not homosexual, I am not a refugee, I am not part of an ethnic or religious minority etc.

I would agree here. The causes I stand for do not benefit my life, and some have a negative impact.

 

[Locutus]

Compared to when? Just so we get a better idea: When do you think it was best?

I´m honestly wondering what time you have in mind as the positive comparandum when you say "things are getting worse".

I have asked this question on another forum. When someone despaired of a lack of common ground (morally speaking), they were asked for an example of the alternative and the reason that era was chosen. Of course, they could not have noted a lack without first having seen the opposite, so it was a reasonable request. I recall that out of about 40 pages of responses, there were perhaps three responses which weren't obfuscation, and actually gave a direct answer.

 

[Locutus]

Society isn't doing all that great. It certainly seems to be crumbling in places.

Odd. Most of the data I've seen suggests it's getting better.

 

[Locutus]

In the longer perspective, I think whatever commonality there was in the mid-20th century was the anomaly. (And this was likely a product of WW2, when the fight against a clearly defined external enemy--militant fascism--was a potent force for national unity.

This. Though it was of course a thin veneer of unity, and only for the select. Ask any impoverished African American living in the south in the 1950s if there was unity.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Its an argument that could go on forever.... But to say that morals are just opinions is incorrect as I view things. That's not to say that people have different opinions about morality, but it's not the same as saying morals are just opinions.

On the level you are suggesting, since we've sort of locked gravity into the debate, even gravity is an opinion because we don't really know what causes it.. or I should probably rephrase that and say that we really don't know what it is.. we only know an effect that we describe it to be. Point in fact, what most people generally refer to as gravity, is actually a curvature of space-time affected by mass distribution. So, you can't really prove that gravity exists.. you can only prove that there is an effect you label to be gravity.

That's what gravity is though...it's a force acting on matter. We can not only observe its effects...we can supposedly now see it (did you read this is the news recently). We can actually "see" gravitational waves. So when it comes to gravity...the discussion can be about many things, but not it's existence.

With morals...I've never seen anyone establish them beyond how they exist in the mind. There's no external moral right and wrong. Specifically, they are value judgements...judgements of behavior based upon sets of values we hold. I don't see how they could ever exist as anything else.

The debate over this is a complex one and to take part in it, folks have to agree to some simple boundaries. You stated that morality is based on opinion.. I'm saying that's not true.. while certain people have different opinions about morality, what is moral or not does not change because of them.

I understand your claim...what I don't understand is how you've arrived at it. How do you know what a moral fact is?

 

[RDKirk]

By today's standards, it usually is easily apparent as you say.. While there are a few debatable subjects, most are slam dunks and those which are debatable usually have an option to error on the side of caution.


Just because someone thinks or describes an idea as being favorable to society, does not make it so. In the case of Nazi eugenics, its been scientifically proven at a genetic level that the idea was poor. Again, just because someone says an idea is good, does not make it so.


Yup... but again, just because someone says something is good, (or bad), does not make it so.
What is morally right or wrong is not based on what anyone thinks.. its based on facts.. The problem is that in the absence of reliable factual and scientific information, we are sometimes misguided. But that doesn't mean that the scale of what is or isn't moral has changed..

"Facts" can be very slippery things. You yourself pointed out:

In the case of Nazi eugenics, its been scientifically proven at a genetic level that the idea was poor.

Well, before it was scientifically proven otherwise, eugenics was acceptable science (it just wasn't yet acceptable morals--but scientists were trying to change that). That tends to be how it goes: Facts are facts until they are proven otherwise.

The wiser a person becomes in any field, the less likely he is to assert anything as an unqualified fact.

And of course, when you're talking about people--either individually or in mobs--"facts" about folk are even more slippery than facts about things.

Morals are totally not about "facts," and when someone tries to create a morality that is about "facts," they inevitably lead to actions that nobody considers "moral" (read "The Cold Equations," for instance).

Even something seemingly so simple as Utilitarianism can lead with lock-step rational logic to both Communism and Objectivism.