This thread has been prompted by Theoryofrelativity’s question on the 'morality of eating meat' thread, which inevitably turned into a lengthy debate on eating meat rather than an exploration why something becomes a moral issue. So I have decided (rightly or wrongly) to take my answer out and post it on another thread.
My opinion on this is that morals are our highest concepts or right and wrong / good and bad that we as humans can conceive of. Morals in their highest form are fairly easy to grasp, the issues only become clouded when we try to apply these morals in a practical sense. This not becomes the morals are unclear in themselves but due to circumstance; due to emotion, pleasure and suffering things change, but this does not affect the moral just the application of the moral. I think there is a filtration of morals as follows, which occurs in society as well as personally (although I have shown it personally);
Top level:- Ideals, morals, concepts of highest good and bad / right and wrong.
Intermediate level :- Ideals are formed into a personal philosophy of life, which are affected by other existing philosophies i.e. other individuals ideals. Practical considerations also start to creep in at this stage.
Lower level :- These policies are attempted to be implemented in a practical sense by individuals in their daily lives. But here personal circumstance, and personal joys and sufferinsg mean that our ideals and our personal philosophies of life are often never implemented in a practical sense.
It is when people start at the bottom and try to work upwards that confusion occurs. When people look at what we do and try to say these are our morals, without taking into account circumstances. If we can get back to our highest aspiration irresopective of practical application – these are morals (IMO anyway)
And I think this hypothetical situation posted on the same thread by Tiassa is a perfect example; (I know tiassa posted it in response to a different point, but the example is still a good one
)
The possibilities outlined here are nothing to do with the ideals that form our morals. They are only possible pragmatic solutions to a particular set of circumstance, working from the bottom up, we do not arrive at our moral values, just a record of human behaviour which may not even accord with the morals of that individual let alone the society from which the individual comes.
The top level highest ideal that the human mind could come up with in this situation is self sacrifice, kill yourself so the little girl can eat you then she will survive – self sacrifice is the highest moral.
But that would require complete fearlessness and an incredible power of will. So, at an intermediate level this ideal may be filtered down to say both accepting rescue or death – but no one gets eaten. This isnt the highest moral but it is an acceptable moral policy.
But in the end at the lower level, when faced with the circumstance, emotion and suffering of starvation – the little girl may well get eaten.
But I say these are not our morals – this is how we are forced to break our morals by circumstance. And this can be applied to numerous (if not all) other situations.
Theoryofrelativity said:
My opinion on this is that morals are our highest concepts or right and wrong / good and bad that we as humans can conceive of. Morals in their highest form are fairly easy to grasp, the issues only become clouded when we try to apply these morals in a practical sense. This not becomes the morals are unclear in themselves but due to circumstance; due to emotion, pleasure and suffering things change, but this does not affect the moral just the application of the moral. I think there is a filtration of morals as follows, which occurs in society as well as personally (although I have shown it personally);
Top level:- Ideals, morals, concepts of highest good and bad / right and wrong.
Intermediate level :- Ideals are formed into a personal philosophy of life, which are affected by other existing philosophies i.e. other individuals ideals. Practical considerations also start to creep in at this stage.
Lower level :- These policies are attempted to be implemented in a practical sense by individuals in their daily lives. But here personal circumstance, and personal joys and sufferinsg mean that our ideals and our personal philosophies of life are often never implemented in a practical sense.
It is when people start at the bottom and try to work upwards that confusion occurs. When people look at what we do and try to say these are our morals, without taking into account circumstances. If we can get back to our highest aspiration irresopective of practical application – these are morals (IMO anyway)
tiassa said:
And I think this hypothetical situation posted on the same thread by Tiassa is a perfect example; (I know tiassa posted it in response to a different point, but the example is still a good one
)The possibilities outlined here are nothing to do with the ideals that form our morals. They are only possible pragmatic solutions to a particular set of circumstance, working from the bottom up, we do not arrive at our moral values, just a record of human behaviour which may not even accord with the morals of that individual let alone the society from which the individual comes.
The top level highest ideal that the human mind could come up with in this situation is self sacrifice, kill yourself so the little girl can eat you then she will survive – self sacrifice is the highest moral.
But that would require complete fearlessness and an incredible power of will. So, at an intermediate level this ideal may be filtered down to say both accepting rescue or death – but no one gets eaten. This isnt the highest moral but it is an acceptable moral policy.
But in the end at the lower level, when faced with the circumstance, emotion and suffering of starvation – the little girl may well get eaten.
But I say these are not our morals – this is how we are forced to break our morals by circumstance. And this can be applied to numerous (if not all) other situations.