Who sets the standard for morality?

[Mind Over Matter]

And a second thought, can true Morality change over time? Can Right become wrong and wrong become right? Who should have the power to change that?

 

[cosmictraveler]

Yes it can and has many times. As an example of a very recent problem with slavery. Many thought that slavery was perfectly fine and saw nothing wrong with owning another person. Although many of these slave owners were so called "Christians" who were following what their bible said, they were wrong and had to change what they thought was right to do to others.

 

[spidergoat]

A board of ethicists.

 

[Fall Caesar]

Morality can't change, so long as the human condition doesn't change. It has an objective foundation.

Yes, a subjective perception of right and wrong can become wrong and right. However, if an absolute moral law exists (which I believe does exist), then right is always right, and anything that's not right is wrong.

Note the difference between objective foundation and subjective perception: all perceptions operate in consistency with the limits of the objective foundation, i.e. human behavior is x, but humans can also do y, with the limiting reagent being x.

 

[Syzygys]

Majority or the powerful.

And a second thought, can true Morality change over time?

there is no "true" morality, if you mean objective morality by it that is valid under all circumstances.

Can Right become wrong and wrong become right?

Sure happens all the time, prohibition, poligamy,etc.

Who should have the power to change that?

Personally I think only I should have the power to change laws and moral standard, but most people probably disagree with this view...

 

[Fall Caesar]

Majority or the powerful.

...

Personally I think only I should have the power to change laws and moral standard, but most people probably disagree with this view...

Certainly I'd agree, if you had the most influence.

And it truly is a matter of influence, whether it's in terms of fame, wealth, or physical strength, or otherwise: those with the most influence determine ethics.

So far as an absolute moral standard goes, I feel that it's determined by God, as I describe myself as a Christian; yet, I believe that it's the overlap of everybody's influence - what everybody has in common by nature, per se. It's surely more specific than "Thou shalt not kill", but perhaps more like this: "Given situation x, it is always beneficial to yourself and to everyone else in the world to do y"

I feel all behavior (yes, even murder) is always right unless determined otherwise. :m:

 

[James R]

Regarding the poll: you need to consider the basic question: "Is it possible to be wrong about a moral choice?"

If your answer is "No", then morality is arbitrary.
If your answer is "Yes", then since individuals and even entire cultures can make mistakes, perhaps they are not always reliable on matters of morality. It does seem likely, however, that a group of people is more likely to get it right than a single individual. But not always.

As for God, you need to ask Plato's question: Does God say things are good or evil arbitrarily according to his whim, or does he say things are good or evil because they are? If the former, then good and evil are arbitrary again. If the latter, then we ought to refer to the "higher power" that informs God's commands - go to the real source.

 

[glaucon]

Regarding the poll: you need to consider the basic question: "Is it possible to be wrong about a moral choice?"

If your answer is "No", then morality is arbitrary.
If your answer is "Yes", then since individuals and even entire cultures can make mistakes, perhaps they are not always reliable on matters of morality. It does seem likely, however, that a group of people is more likely to get it right than a single individual. But not always.

As for God, you need to ask Plato's question: Does God say things are good or evil arbitrarily according to his whim, or does he say things are good or evil because they are? If the former, then good and evil are arbitrary again. If the latter, then we ought to refer to the "higher power" that informs God's commands - go to the real source.

Well said.
As always James.

Therein lies my problem with the OP. As it stands, it's question-begging.
The very assumption of a standard entails a particular type of answer...

 

[Pandaemoni]

So far as an absolute moral standard goes, I feel that it's determined by God, as I describe myself as a Christian

If there is an objective morality determined by God (specifically the Christian God), then would you agree that slavery is immoral? The Bible does commend:

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."

in Ephesians 6:5 and states, equivalently, in Colossians 3:22:

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."

While the Bible does require kinder treatment for slaves (a significant improvement over what other religions were doing for slaves 2000 years ago), it never suggests there's anything wrong with slavery. So the most likely interpretation seems to me to be that our view of morality of slavery has changed since the Bible was written and one of the following is true:

(i) our modern views are wrong and slavery is likely a morally neutral institution (so long as the slaves are not Jewish and not mistreated); or

(ii) our modern views are right and the Bible depicts an immoral callousness towards human slavery (possibly because of errors in the Biblical work by its human authors rather than being an accurate reflection of the views of God); or

(iii) the Biblical view of slavery was correct, within its own time, but morality has since changed (by popular will or by the will of God is hard to say...but change has occurred).
​

It is clear that what humans consider to be moral has changed over time. It is also clear that, if modern, western society (from any point within the last say 100 years) is the model of morality, then we are modern western culture is the first and only "moral" culture that ever existed, as no culture of the past ever mirrored it. The Romans left it to fathers to decide whether or not to beat and kill slaves, wives, children, etc. for any reason the father thought justified. The Israelites committed genocide and also practiced slavery. Medieval Europeans were often unbelievably cruel relative to what would be acceptable in modern times. It's hard to think of any period of history that one could select as the moral standard, that is not itself rather unique in its moral characteristics.

So, as a matter of practical reality, humans ACT as if morality evolves. If God alone knows the one true correct code, I hope it isn't the Bible, as God orders genocide and tacitly seems to condone slavery, and the kidnapping of women and forced marriage to husbands they do not want (which is what happens after certain Israelites slaughter their fellow Jews, the Benjamites).

If there is such a secret code, though, it's irrelevant, since it is obviously unknowable and does not guide our actions or beliefs.

My answer to the OP, then, is that morality is the name we give to a selected set of social memes of correct conduct, designed to foster intra-group (and sometimes inter-group) unity. They are passed along culturally and they evolve in a pattern similar to the evolution of languages or other cultural customs. We are particularly prone to it because we are intelligent, social creatures. Being social, group unity is important enough for us to develop complex rules to ensure it, and being intelligent means those rules can be very complex indeed.

 

[Syzygys]

So far as an absolute moral standard goes, I feel that it's determined by God, as I describe myself as a Christian;

Talking about absolutes, you sure don't mean slavery and poligamy, just to name 2 perfectly acceptable standards by your God???

 

[Fall Caesar]

Talking about absolutes, you sure don't mean slavery and poligamy, just to name 2 perfectly acceptable standards by your God???

I do not intend to discuss religion here; my stance is such that all behavior that is self-interested is moral. To take this further, several psychologists and philosophers concur that all behavior is self-interested (Hume and Nietzsche for starters). Therefore all behavior is moral by the transitive property, including polygamy and slavery. However, this behavior is not necessarily ethical or rational at times. Please note the difference between morals and ethics. And by rational, I mean in the absolute greatest self-interest of the subject of discussion (usually the individual).

As per an absolute rational moral standard, because I have the belief that God exists and is an absolute being, I also feel as if the absolute rational moral standard is any behavior which is in the interests of God. Notice this is merely an extension of my first argument. I feel I am in no moral position to comment on thoughts of God; however, it may be that slavery and polygamy were once acceptable and necessary in God's interests.

To address this attack in particular, it's not to say that slavery and polygamy fell 'out of favor' with God, thereby rendering absolute rational moral law incapacitated because it changes, but I'm suggesting that absolute rational moral truths are more complex than "Thou shalt not kill", but may instead line themselves with "In situation x, murder is acceptable as it is in the interests of God".

Granted you are in situation x, where x is the time of Egyptian slavery, then it is permissible to hold slaves, by the absolute rational moral law in God's interest. However, we are not in situation x, therefore holding slaves is not permissible, as it is not in the interest of God. I feel absolute moral law ought to be more complex than a generic "murder is always wrong".

For this reason, I do not see any empirical method to determine with absolute certainty exactly what is absolute rational moral behavior. Perhaps an overlap and analysis of every single human characteristic may yield trends or certain scenarios where decision 1 is in the interest of ALL humans involved. But in today's society, nobody cares for moral judgments and so it is not practical. The rain falls on the just and the unjust.

 

[Fall Caesar]

If there is an objective morality determined by God (specifically the Christian God), then would you agree that slavery is immoral?

I believe it was necessary and in the interests of God at the time.

So, as a matter of practical reality, humans ACT as if morality evolves. If God alone knows the one true correct code, I hope it isn't the Bible, as God orders genocide and tacitly seems to condone slavery, and the kidnapping of women and forced marriage to husbands they do not want (which is what happens after certain Israelites slaughter their fellow Jews, the Benjamites).

If there is such a secret code, though, it's irrelevant, since it is obviously unknowable and does not guide our actions or beliefs.

I agree. Humans Act as if morality evolves, and while all their behavior is moral, the ethical standards DO evolve with time. However, I believe that the bigger picture is such that an absolute moral standard does exist, whether inherent by God or the laws of nature in accordance with human nature.

My answer to the OP, then, is that morality is the name we give to a selected set of social memes of correct conduct, designed to foster intra-group (and sometimes inter-group) unity. They are passed along culturally and they evolve in a pattern similar to the evolution of languages or other cultural customs. We are particularly prone to it because we are intelligent, social creatures. Being social, group unity is important enough for us to develop complex rules to ensure it, and being intelligent means those rules can be very complex indeed.

Your entire post was very well stated. I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Fall Caesar]

Morality as a societal awareness issue for "the greater good" and general Christian advocacy is truly arbitrary (this is part of where many people find fault with organized religion); however, the definition of morality, as I've defined earlier as self-interest, implies that it cannot be arbitrary because it holds intrinsic importance towards the individual. To neglect rational moral behavior is to neglect the greatest potential of oneself, and settle for mediocrity at best, which is naturally undesirable.

 

[Anti-Flag]

A board of ethicists.

We prefer the term "committee".