Discussion topic:
Most people would agree that humans share the idea of a moral compass. Not always pointed in the same direction, but we seem to share the idea that things can be right and wrong. We make judgement claims all the time.
Is there a universal morality? A universal direction to the compass? Where does it come from?
Discuss:
This question is one that I have long wondered about. It was in the past simple for me: all morals come from God/gods, full stop. The atheist existentialist, Jean-Paul Satre, grievingly backed this up when he wrote something along the lines of: “with no God, there is no good” and so on. I don’t think that I believe this anymore. My frame of reference is now more along the lines of Nietzsche’s bit (and I am paraphrasing badly), “truth is like a worn out coin we can see that it exists, but can no longer ascertain its value.” This sentiment is easily applicable to all sorts of “truths”. We can see that morals exist, though we can no longer determine their value – relatively speaking.
ReplyDeleteI am rambling. To answer the question more succinctly, the questions of the origins of morality is somewhat irrelevant. Often many of those that are spiritually minded will point to this as a definitive proof of God – which it is, in my opinion, not. Or, the more empirically minded people will create great stories about our herd mentality, and how it makes sense from social-evolutionary sense. I obviously lean this way a bit, and perhaps morals were some of our first tools that we developed as a species. I suppose the danger is using morals as a proof of something beyond us, or using them as a way of proving that humans do not need the divine or metaphysical, because we are doing just fine on our own – the nightly news disproves the latter quickly.
I think what interests me more is how can people who are completely moral in certain ways, be completely amoral in other ways. Here I am thinking of a great many examples: first to mind would be the whites in South Africa, or the “Christian” slave traders in the American South. But, these are obvious and ready to mind for most people. There are more complicated examples of this in the world today. Terrorists that believe their actions are moral (I obviously not sympathetic to this view), contrasted with Western forces that are combating those same terrorists on moral basis. It is relatively easy to setup a base morality – the Ten commandment cover a lot of the human experience. It is much harder to determine whose morals are more moral, because such determinations are always a product of cultural bias.
I think I’m done rambling for now.
John
Very insightful ramble! :-)
ReplyDeleteI think my terms are unclear.. I tend to mix up morals and truth. I like some of the Sam Harris books and Daniel Dennett lectures. they describe the distinction better than i can.
Here is my concern:
- different groups claim to have a monopoly on truth
- sometimes this involves a tautology... it is true because my god said it is true
- morality is used as a basis for a truth and vice versa
If there is no universal truth or universal morality then all becomes subjective.. and we cannot judge another's morality because we cannot judge their situation.
About the only recourse that gives me solace are the findings of thinkers like Karen Armstrong and Joseph Campbell. They have found that in all of their analysis of the human experience and human myth that 'compassion' is the only true theme that underpins all. Compassion is the only human trait that resonates within all of us.
Is all compassion the same? I believe so... the human response of being understood and of being cared for/nurtured crosses all cultural bounds.
So as you say.. does it matter where morality originates from? maybe not.. but it only doesn;t matter if we have another measuring stick (e.g. compassion/empathy) to make sure that no one uses a monopoly of truth to take advantage of others.