Moral, Immoral, or Amoral

[Katefox]

Does morality come with sentience? This begs the question of what is sentience, but for now let's attach sentience to intelligence. Orcas are intelligent and is there any morality to them killing a baby whale and eating only its tongue, then abandoning the carcass? I can't stand images of buffalo hunters killing hundreds of bison just for the tongue and pelt, leaving the rest to rot. To me, those were immoral acts. But when I see the orcas, although the scenes are horrific to my sensibilities, I don't consider their act as immoral. And I'm trying to figure out why there's a difference. There are animals that kill casually, with no apparent survival involved. Are humans the only beings subject to morality and if so, why?

Well, this bit I think I can answer. Why are humans different from other intelligent animals, like the orcas you mentioned? We have language. So far as science has yet figured out, humans are the only species that uses language. (If science proves that orcas, or bonobos, or other creatures have language, I'm going to have to revise this opinion, obviously.) Language isn't just the ability to communicate (lots of animals do that), but it gives us the ability to reason instead of react (or maybe it's simply that which indicates it). Language gives us a tool to analyse our actions, and explain them. So we have, in my opinion, an ability to ask "was this action right, or good?" that other animals don't have. And thus, we have developed morals, and other animals have not (or at least, not anything I can recognise as morality).

So where does morality come from and is our morality different from the "natural" world and why would it be?

I would like to think that morality comes from some kind of inherent goodness of human beings, but I think it does only inasmuch as a person is willing to keep a moral code. The moral code itself come from social conventions, what the culture an individual grows up in believes is good, or right, or proper. But a person's moral decisions are also going to be influenced by context. Stealing is generally deemed wrong, but stealing is less wrong, and maybe even right, if one is stealing to survive. Which makes it all rather complex and confusing (rather than being able to give blanket statements of "this is always right" and "this is always wrong").

[Thorn]

Just wondering where y'all think morality comes from? Is it a social convention to keep us in line? Is it holy law from the god/desses? Do different beings have different moral codes?

Ethics are certainly a social construct. Morality? I don't know. I don't believe it's holy law, or that one must be a believer in order to be a moral person. I think it might be tied to empathy and intelligence - the more one feels the pains of others, the less likely one is to want to be the cause of it. At least that would with my personal take on morality: I don't really care what society says is right or wrong, but I try my best not to add any more to the net amount of pain in the world.

[NatureMade]

Just wondering where y'all think morality comes from? Is it a social convention to keep us in line? Is it holy law from the god/desses? Do different beings have different moral codes?

Does morality come with sentience? Are humans the only beings subject to morality and if so, why?

So where does morality come from and is our morality different from the "natural" world and why would it be?

Morality comes, not with mere sentience, but with awareness. Especially the awareness of suffering. When lions or dogs or orcas, etc. kill another creature -- even when they do it to eat -- they do not consider the suffering of the other. They consider only their own growling stomach that needs to be filled. That other represents food, and going on to live another day, and nothing more.

As modern humans, we have become aware of suffering. (I deliberately leave out our less enlightened ancestors, since they really could not understand suffering of anything not like themselves.) We know that anything with a nervous system feels, and therefore suffers when it is hurt.

In my opinion, morality is making a conscious choice to NOT cause suffering to others in so far as we are able. That is why I am a vegetarian. I choose not to inflict pain and suffering on other creatures merely to satisfy my desire to consume their flesh. (For now, lets please leave the debate on whether plants also suffer for another topic, okay?)

In the end I think morality is partly a construct, but only in the sense that it has developed along with culture and is not innate. And... I do think that as a species, humans did not always have a sense of morality. However, I also believe that our native intelligence and whatever other attributes exist within us that make us truly human, somehow let us "know" when we do wrong. If we choose to do it anyway, knowing it IS wrong, that is immoral. If we do "wrong" without realizing it is wrong, it is amoral because awareness does not enter the equation. Morality is knowing what is wrong and choosing not to do it.

Bottom line... awareness of wrong is the thing that makes our actions right or wrong -- not the actions themselves.

[Starglade]

<snippage>

Bottom line... awareness of wrong is the thing that makes our actions right or wrong -- not the actions themselves.

Yes. And this is why karma is not morality. Thanks for this post; it gives me another place to make that point, aside from the latest "pesky karma" thread.

[GaiaDianne]

.... herd (or pack) implies to me a "getting along and working together" mentality, but I think the lion will (almost) always eat the gazelle (ot: there was that one amazing video where the lioness seemed to adopt the baby gazelle).

GAIADIANNE:

Hi and Merry Meet, EJay --

I think first we need to distinguish between morality (which addresses "good-versus-evil" behavior), and ethics ("right-versus-wrong").

SEcondly, -- Your point about the lioness and the gazelle is mostly true, But there are some surprising and fascinating stories (in the Natural world - as on Animal Planet) of natural "enemies" (as in prey-predator) making "friends" with each other.


EJay:

Anyhow, back to topic, so is morality a "majority rules" situation, then? If it's a construct, there are no absolutes, no unforgivable sins? Our sense of right and wrong is just culturally based? Or is it a genetic, Darwinian thing, perhaps?
EJay

GAIA:

No, i don't agree it's a "majority rule" thing at all -- though it may often seem that way. Morality is (at least partly) determined by world view, theology, culture, etc.

May i offer what i think are a couple of fascinating examples:

a) Nearly every culture in every era has had some kind of "Incest Taboo" morality -- but it's very different relationships that are considered incestuous. For example, in some socieities where the Mother's brother is considered a primarily significant influence in the children's lives, HE (rather than the father or other adult male) is forbidden and punished for having incestuous relations with any of his neices or nephews.

It seems that these taboos developed to preserve and protect (healthy, appropriate) familial-kin relationships and social structures.

b) Here's a very different kind of example:

Conservative Christians mostly say that their God has created moral laws regarding sexual behavior, and that anyone who violates those "laws" is being immoral --

By contrast, most Pagans generally feel that to exercise social or religious pressure on anyone to express their sexuality in certain "approved" ways only, is immoral.

-- Very different perspectives on morality!


Blessings - GaiaDianne

[Asch]

GAIADIANNE:

Hi and Merry Meet, EJay --

I think first we need to distinguish between morality (which addresses "good-versus-evil" behavior), and ethics ("right-versus-wrong").

SEcondly, -- Your point about the lioness and the gazelle is mostly true, But there are some surprising and fascinating stories (in the Natural world - as on Animal Planet) of natural "enemies" (as in prey-predator) making "friends" with each other.


EJay:



GAIA:

No, i don't agree it's a "majority rule" thing at all -- though it may often seem that way. Morality is (at least partly) determined by world view, theology, culture, etc.

May i offer what i think are a couple of fascinating examples:

a) Nearly every culture in every era has had some kind of "Incest Taboo" morality -- but it's very different relationships that are considered incestuous. For example, in some socieities where the Mother's brother is considered a primarily significant influence in the children's lives, HE (rather than the father or other adult male) is forbidden and punished for having incestuous relations with any of his neices or nephews.

It seems that these taboos developed to preserve and protect (healthy, appropriate) familial-kin relationships and social structures.

b) Here's a very different kind of example:

Conservative Christians mostly say that their God has created moral laws regarding sexual behavior, and that anyone who violates those "laws" is being immoral --

By contrast, most Pagans generally feel that to exercise social or religious pressure on anyone to express their sexuality in certain "approved" ways only, is immoral.

-- Very different perspectives on morality!


Blessings - GaiaDianne

There usually are incest taboos in most cultures however many of them also suspend them when it comes to things like royal bloodlines and as noted the nature of what constitutes incest also varies, for instance in some cultures a preferred marriage is one between first cousins - a situation that is banned in many U.S. states and would, at the very least, garner societal censure at the least.

Further the morality of sexuality runs a vast gamut, though in likely the majority of the world there are certain dynamics that are considered inherently wrong (i.e. children sexually involved with adults) and others that, depending upon the dominant culture's current moral outlook are subject to censure and condemnation, such as homosexual or multiple partner relationships consensual/open relationships.

In my experience morality is almost always tied up with religion whereas ethics seems to be more about right action vs. wrong action.

[ToddGrove]

\snip/

Here's my thoughts. I think our concept of morality comes from our ability to reason. Our advanced ability to reason is what has ostracized us from the natural world of amoral thought so to speak. It's what makes us "human". We over think things to the point of creating these "morals". Should we? Shouldn't we? These questions had to evolve after years and years. I bet you anything the first homo-sapien had no real sense of "morality". I bet after years of adaptation and survival we sort of, for lack of a better term advanced in our thought process. The way we think eventually started to influence how we act. The way we think and the way we act influence our concept of morals. Every individual has different morals. Every individual has a different way of thinking.

That's my .02 cents anyhow. Thanks

[Dezdura]

So where does morality come from and is our morality different from the "natural" world and why would it be?

Would a human in a completely natural state kill all people he or she met? Probably not. There is a need for companionship, and kinship in us. Maybe it is genetic, and differing in strength in each of us. We do not want to be alone. We want to love someone. Living in peace, is better. It is selfish because we all want to live without having to look out for assassins and thieves. It is natural to kill, but it is just as natural to want to live in a place where we are comfortable and happy and do not have to endure the stress of always being worried about the next attack.

Now, this is getting down to what is "more" biological. In a constant state of stress, you live a shorter life, and you also suffer from more illness. People do not want to die young, they want to live long, happy lives.

Human beings benefit from being "peaceful." They can have children, and raise children. When they are elders, they can help to take care of the family. Without peace, language would not have been. Too much talking would have given away your location. You notice that mice don't talk. They are everyone's prey. Delicious, tasty, fat mice are to most predatory animals what pizza is to us modern people.


Families gathering in a group and living together creates culture, and self defense.
The need to live in a culture, among other people gave rise to rules and laws against things like killing and stealing from others? Why? People should not kill because life would be miserable for them if they did.

Without a certain constraint of behavior, we would always be stressed out and worried that the next person was going to stab us or steal our stuff.

Having rules like these is for the comfort and happiness of everyone. We follow rules because it is simply better to follow rules. We are taught from the time we are infants to follow rules. If we behaved like babies we would all just take, and also have tantrums each time we could not get anything we wanted. Our parents teach us to be generous, and to not roll on the ground screaming when we do not get our way.

In order to live in close proximity with other people, mankind decided that it was "self-evident" to follow certain rules. This was not always the case. In Renascence Italy, for instance, if you spoke out against a top family, you could be quietly killed off and no one would be punished. If a woman had an affair, the father could just kill her. Even up to the 1940's if a girl went with a boyfriend that the parents disagreed with, she could be put in a mental institution, or put out on the streets. Even a child who refused to do what the parent said, could be taken out and killed.

We live in the present, so these facts of history seem backward to us, and yet they used to be the way it was done.

Everyone benefits from people behaving properly. Is this genetic? Possibly some is. Even early humans felt better living in a group. There is mutual safety. If someone becomes sick, they will be tended to. Large projects like hunting for food can be done much more easily. Things like making houses, and storing food for the future is more possible with a larger group.

As far as Dogs and cats not having "ethics." The animal brain is different from the human brain. They have the lower "reptilian" brain which is where you would call "basic instincts" come from, but their grey matter (thought and memory) is very small compared to the human brain. no one should even expect for them to rationalize as human beings do. They just do not have the ability to do that.

The same with pigs, cows, elephants. They simply do not have the brain they would need to do the human act of rationalizing.

[stephyjh]

Even up to the 1940's if a girl went with a boyfriend that the parents disagreed with, she could be put in a mental institution, or put out on the streets. Even a child who refused to do what the parent said, could be taken out and killed.

Do you have a source for this claim?

[Dezdura]

Do you have a source for this claim?

To answer your post

This was common knowledge when I was younger, but not so much today, go to any college professor who teaches women's issues and they will be glad to refer you to some nice citations.

Here is an article found after about 10 seconds of Google.

60 years ago a 17 year old girl ended up in a mental institution because she had a baby with her boyfriend. The child was put up for adoption.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...ppearance.html

Going back in time, where this practice was more common,
here is a quote from the Tennasee Geneological Society:

"When researching our women ancestors, one place is often overlooked: the
insane asylum. Some of the reasons our grandmothers were institutionalized
are quite unbelievable. In the early 1800's wives and daughters were often
committed for not being obedient enough to their husbands or fathers."

Here is the rest of that article:

http://www.tngs.org/library/asylum.htm

I know it sounds nutty, and younger women of this generation do not get it, they think women always had rights, but women, I would say up to the 1970's were under the threat of either institutionalization, or being cast out into the streets if they became pregnant while unmarried, or "disobeyed" authority. (It is seen in literature a lot as well). I am in my 50's and heard a few things about girls disappearing this way. They were also sent "to the country" or to live with grandparents. Not all women were treated this way.