This doesn't sit well with the notion that morality is objective, because Dostoevsky's morality - which is essentially deontological and divine-command-based - is a thousand miles from that of Homer, which is that of an honour society where bravery meant everything and compassion nothing. And neither of them would agree with the secular, compassion-based morality that we see in Steinbeck, and that imbues most of Western culture, when it can be bothered to be moral. — andrewk
Shakespeare for morals? Really? I have actually tutored a little shakespeare (high school level - I don't know crap, as is probably obvious in this post), and it is blowing my mind to think that students were supposed to be learning morals. — ZhouBoTong
This doesn't sit well with the notion that morality is objective, because Dostoevsky's morality - which is essentially deontological and divine-command-based - is a thousand miles from that of Homer, which is that of an honour society where bravery meant everything and compassion nothing. And neither of them would agree with the secular, compassion-based morality that we see in Steinbeck, and that imbues most of Western culture, when it can be bothered to be moral. — andrewk
I remember a lecturer telling me about a student who said he didn’t like Shakespeare “Because it’s full of cliches”. The lecturer replied that, “Its full of cliches now.” — Brett
I guess my only question is why is Shakespeare's discussion of human nature more informative than "Breaking Bad"? — ZhouBoTong
But the actual morals themselves do not change that much over time, hence my including Doestoevsky. — Brett
But my point would be that related to morality, Shakespeare is not cliche, but just outdated and wrong. — ZhouBoTong
I guess I’m trying to focus on two things:
a: that morality exists as an objective set of guides on our behaviour (I await the howls).
b: that art, primarily writing, explains it: Homer, Shakespeare, Doestoevsky. — Brett
The problem is that even if there are such objective moral principles, upheld by God or some such thing, then we have to allow for human knowledge of these principles to grow and evolve, just like our knowledge of the natural world grows and evolves. This means that ancient mores and customs, may now be determined as "wrong". But also we need to respect the fact that any mores and customs at any time, may be "wrong", and this applies even now. At any given time of "now", the practised customs may be wrong. If an artist apprehends an existing custom as wrong, that person must employ creative skill, tact, in shedding light on that custom as wrong, to avoid scorn by the general population. — Metaphysician Undercover
This means that ancient mores and customs, may now be determined as "wrong". But also we need to respect the fact that any mores and customs at any time, may be "wrong", and this applies even now. — Metaphysician Undercover
Nicely said. I am starting to enjoy how much I can disagree with a person in one thread, then completely agree in the next. Even if it may suggest I (or they, but I will usually assume I) have some inconsistencies in how I analyze each separate topic. — ZhouBoTong
a) that morality exists in people as “a suite of interrelated other-regarding behaviors that cultivate and regulate complex interactions within social groups (that) includes empathy, reciprocity, altruism, cooperation, and a sense of fairness”. (Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce). These have evolved and are no less a part of being human than having a thumb. I regard them as being objective in the sense that we did not chose to grow a thumb. — Brett
But, this morality as we understand it, is essentially the same as it’s always been. — Brett
Good point. Supposedly Shakespeare’s plays were performed for the general public, a rowdy,barely literate audience. So, yes, I don’t see why ‘Breaking Bad’ is any different in terms of portraying human nature than Shakespeare. — Brett
How can this be the case though? It is quite common that two different people, or two distinct societies disagree on moral issues. And it's not just small things, some societies used to practise human sacrifice. Even in the Old Testament, God was portrayed as jealous and vindictive, He'd smite you if you were unfaithful. These are not good moral traits by today's standards.
So you say that it's an objective fact that human's have morality, that they distinguish bad from good. And, you seem to want to say that since the classifications, of which sort of actions are good, and which sort are bad, haven't changed much over the years, these distinctions which we make concerning bad and good, are to some extent, objectively true. But doesn't this really exclude the possibility of moral differences and the difference of opinion on moral issues, which exists between us? And if we downplay these differences, don't we also downplay the need to make the effort to resolve these differences? Wouldn't you agree that a big part of "morality" is being able to negotiate these differences, and work out solutions, compromise? — Metaphysician Undercover
So you say that it's an objective fact that human's have morality, that they distinguish bad from good. — Metaphysician Undercover
And, you seem to want to say that since the classifications, of which sort of actions are good, and which sort are bad, haven't changed much over the years, these distinctions which we make concerning bad and good, are to some extent, objectively true. — Metaphysician Undercover
But doesn't this really exclude the possibility of moral differences and the difference of opinion on moral issues, which exists between us? — Metaphysician Undercover
And if we downplay these differences, don't we also downplay the need to make the effort to resolve these differences? — Metaphysician Undercover
Wouldn't you agree that a big part of "morality" is being able to negotiate these differences, and work out solutions, compromise? — Metaphysician Undercover
But they do, we see it all the time, you know you possess it, so do your friends. It’s not something we make up day to day. — Brett
Yes, if those distinctions between good and bad haven’t changed These morals are evolutionary, through a set of preferences that contribute to the wellbeing of a society. They have developed in a singular vein to what they are now. They have not swung off on some crazy tangent then returned to begin again. In modern times there have been cases of cannibalism, and those people tried to conceal what they’d done. In the case of Eichmann, he knew he was transgressing a set of moral, otherwise why run to South America? — Brett
Do you really believe you have been taught not to kill, not to rape? Do you really think that’s the reason you don’t? In your life did you ever get a message from anyone that rape was wrong! Did you ever think, at any age, that causing pain to others was okay? It’s not necessary for each and every generation to learn morality all over again from scratch. Not only is it not necessary, it’s unlikely. Our evolution would be too slow, if not actually reaching a dead end. It’s part of you, just like your thumb. — Brett
Only if you can prove they have changed. First you’re suggesting that they’re not objectively true without proving it, you only suggest it might not be true, and then using that claim as a fact to argue the second point, that moral differences exist, as if it was proven. — Brett
You begin to partly define “morality’ as the ability to negotiate these differences. Even if it were true that there are moral differences, where does the idea of resolving them come from. If there are such differences that clash why would we feel the need to resolve them without possessing some sense of morality? If it wasn’t morality then what would you call it? If you call it co-operation then I suggest you have to consider where the idea of co-operation springs from. Co-operation requires an understanding of reciprocity, empathy and fairness.
Is your conclusion that there must be differences, there has to be differences, because without those differences to be resolved there would be no morality?
It’s like a trick question; if I agree that there are differences then there can’t be a singular morality, and if I don’t agree to the idea that there are differences then there can’t be a morality. — Brett
I understand and agree with all of this.
To be moral depends on the true existence of the Ideal ethic. This is aspirational, is it not?
“... if there is such a thing remains in the realm of not yet understood.”
There’s two things there: a) is it real?, and b) if it is real it’s not yet understood.
If it’s real, from where does it come?
If it’s not real, then who are we?
If there was no Ideal ethic then we would be immoral creatures because there would be nothing to chose from.
But we don’t know if we are moral creatures, because we don’t know if the Ideal ethic exists. Is that true? — Brett
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.