29 Mar 03
That is a great post. Would it not also be from a Buddhist perspective that the roots of suffering and anxiety are found in attachments and possesiveness? Obviously attachments are deeply engrained into the American way of life. I have often felt that Americans would do well to live out more of the third world and the third world would do well to take some of the entreprenial American spirit. Kirk
30 Mar 03
Originally posted by bbarrAll of morality is an artificial construct. We do not speak of morality in nature. The lion will hunt and kill the antelope, but we do not think of this as being immoral. Cats have been known to toy with their prey before dispatching them, inflicting unnecessary cruelty that is akin to torture. But there are few, if any, among us who would claim that this is immoral. The universe does not concern itself with the question of morality. It is amoral (being neither moral, nor immoral).
But different cultures disagree on all sorts of things. Western Culture is more or less committed to the claim that psychoses, for intance, result from neurochemical defect. Other cultures have, and perhaps still do, claim that psychoses result from being possessed by evil spirits. Just because cultures disagree about some state of affairs does not mean tha ...[text shortened]... ficant superstitions about respecting the dead (as though the dead have rights) notwithstanding.
But man has developed his own morality peculiar to his own needs, which has evolved and changed throughout the eons of man's existence. Man continues to adapt his morality to changing circumstances, and to different times. Some people will claim that as we expand the scope of our knowledge*, that we are in the process of refining our conception of morality. There is the idea that we are advancing continually towards some state of perfection in which the ultimate conception of morality will be revealed, and that all its previous states will be discarded as being obsolete, or erroneous. But this is an illusion. Morality will continue to evolve, that is true, but not to some higher realm, or final state. It will simply evolve into something different. Man will continue to employ a morality that best suits his purpose in any given circumstance, or era. It will not be inherently any better, nor any worse, even though all of mankind in that era may think of it as being so.
All of mankind may think of torturing someone for pleasure as being inherently evil. But it is not. It does not really make a difference if a man is tortured, or even if the whole species of man were to become extinct. The universe would not mourn our passing. Once again, I say that all of morality is an artificial construct. It was developed by man, to serve man, and has no basis in reality. That is not to say that the concept of morality should be discarded. Quite the contrary. But mankind should proceed with the full knowledge that his morality has no inherent basis in truth, and that it is nothing more than a social contract.
*Your example of knowing the cause of psychosis is an inexact one. Psychosis does have a cause, which can (presumably) become known. We could claim that other competing claims for its cause would be in error. But having psychosis, or knowing its cause is not a moral state. Knowing the cause of psychosis, or expanding our knowledge in other areas, can increase our understanding of the material world and its workings. But this type of mechanistic knowledge can never be used to give us any final insight into something as ephemeral as morality.
30 Mar 03
Originally posted by kirksey957You are assuming here that through the synthesis of these two cultures that each would come come away with the best features of the other. It is quite possible that they would instead come away with having retained nothing but the worst features.
That is a great post. Would it not also be from a Buddhist perspective that the roots of suffering and anxiety are found in attachments and possesiveness? Obviously attachments are deeply engrained into the American way of life. I have often felt that Americans would do well to live out more of the third world and the third world would do well to take some of the entreprenial American spirit. Kirk
30 Mar 03
Originally posted by rwingettAs with most of life, it is a mixed bag. Kirk
You are assuming here that through the synthesis of these two cultures that each would come come away with the best features of the other. It is quite possible that they would instead come away with having retained nothing but the worst features.
30 Mar 03
Originally posted by rwingettWe speak of morality when discussing man, man is a part of nature, so we speak of morality in nature. Wd don't discuss morality when talking about things without the capacity to know the difference between right and wrong, but this is because it would be absurd to hold these creatures responsible for what they do, not because morality is articficial. Holding a cat respoonsible for toying with its prey is akin to holding a rock responsible for falling when dropped; this would just be a category mistake on our part. But the difference between rocks, cats and people is that people, in most cases know the difference between right and wrong. That the universe cares nothing about what is right and wrong shows nothing, as the universe as an entity is incapable of caring. Thus, the universe is equally unconcerned with where I left my car keys, but that doesn't mean there is no objective fact of the matter about where my car keys are.
All of morality is an artificial construct. We do not speak of morality in nature. The lion will hunt and kill the antelope, but we do not think of this as being immoral. Cats have been known to toy with their prey before dispatching them, inflicting unnecessary cruelty that is akin to torture. But there are few, if any, among us who would claim that this i ...[text shortened]... ledge can never be used to give us any final insight into something as ephemeral as morality.
Although moral codes change over the course of time, they do not change much. What does change is those to whom respect is accorded. At no time in man's history was it acceptable to torture an innocent person purely for fun, though we have had at different times different conceptions of what creatures qualify as persons in the relevent respect. I think it is this change is the scope of the application of moral law that marks our progress, not change in the moral laws he take and have always taken to be correct. I'm not claiming that we are advancing towards moral perfection. Although we claim that going around throwing knives at people is morally wrong, we do so because knives can cause damage and pain. If humans evolve into creatures with imperetrable exoskeletons, then presumably we would no longer subscribe to the particular judgement that throwing knives at people is wrong. We would, however, still subscribe to the general principle that to the intentional causing of suffering purely for fun is wrong. It is the general principles that I think remain stable even as we evolve, the application of those principles may very well change with the circumstances.
Your final argument exposes what I take to be the essential reason for thinking morality is artificial, namely that it seems irreducible to naturalistic properties, or inexplicable if the world soley consists of matter and energy in motion. Is this correct?
30 Mar 03
I must hold that there is "true" morality to be found. Regardless of what you hold as the structure of the universe (God, science, a potato, etc. ) I think that there is an inherant drive in all of us towards what is "right" for us to do. Even if you believe that we are nothing more than the most evolved species upon the planet, should it not make sense that our "instincts" should be in alignment? If man is nothing more than an animal he should still be able to agree upon what actions it is "supposed" to do. All animal have an inherant drive to perform certain tasks towards and end goal (perpetuation of the species, balance with the enviroment, etc.).
Even if I were to abandon all of my theological beliefs, I would still say that morality (instinct) must exist in a constant state and be inherant in all of us. In such a circumstance, I would speculate that our evolved intelligence is in many ways the weakness of our species (despite our dependence upon it for survival) in that it is what allows us to make conscious choices that deviate from our "instincts". If I am to believe that we do not fit into the structure of nature and hence be subject to predetermined responses (instincts), then I must consider that we are a creature that lives outside of nature and thusly contemplate spiritual explanations (which is a whole other can of worms).
In all regards, I do indeed affirm that morality not only exists as a universal law, but also that it is finite.
31 Mar 03
Originally posted by bbarr<<Your final argument exposes what I take to be the essential reason for thinking morality is artificial, namely that it seems irreducible to naturalistic properties, or inexplicable if the world soley consists of matter and energy in motion. Is this correct? [/b]>>
We speak of morality when discussing man, man is a part of nature, so we speak of morality in nature. Wd don't discuss morality when talking about things without the capacity to know the difference between right and wrong, but this is because it would be absurd to hold these creatures responsible for what they do, not because morality is articficial. Holdin ...[text shortened]... or inexplicable if the world soley consists of matter and energy in motion. Is this correct?
I am reluctant to agree to this, as it seems I am sticking my head into a noose of your making. But yes, if I understand you correctly (and there is a good chance I do not), then this is what I have been saying.
The earth is the third planet from the sun, and Light travels at 186,000 miles per second. These are facts that can be known to be true. They can be tested. Moreover, they are true whether man is around to observe them or not. They are external from mankind. But morality is entirely dependant upon man's perceptions for it to be considered true. Morality's very existence is contingent upon mankind having the mental capability of conceptualizing it. If mankind were other than what it is, then his conception of morality would either be different from what it is, or it would not exist at all. Therefore, morality can not be said to have any independent basis in reality. It is a mental construct of mankind. The statement that "torture is evil" can only be said to be a subjective truth, and not an objective one.