The Moral Imperative

[Padme]

We give up our own freedom to 'do whatever we want' for the sake of the common good of society - and this is a moral choice (though it can be a very minor one, depending on the situation).

I think this is the crux of it. There is a continuum between absolute freedom and absolute security. In order to feel the security of living in a predictable, safe world, we all have to collectively agree to give up some of our freedoms. This is an expediency. Not sure if the things we all agree not to do are "bad" or "evil" per se, just not that good for our collective security, as we envision it.

I agree to this and would add it could be possible that we evolved to have security in society. As one prehistoric human in the wilderness alone, we are not very fierce creatures, easily hunted alone. Could this be why we have grown to where we want productive and safe societies? We like to think we are individuals and should have the freedom to do whatever we want, however the bottom line is we can't survive very well as lone wolves (so to say). If it's one of us against a lion, lion wins. If its 20 of us against a lion, we win.

Therefore it could be that we evolved morals as a way to make society easier to live with as a whole, because we need to be in packs for our own survival. We have to protect the female of the species and the children and that means we need rules.

[axordil]

Which comes back to the origin question. It matters because it defines what morals are: social rules. If you never deal with another person, it's impossible to act morally or immorally. It takes two (or more) to be moral, or immoral.

[narya]

Would it be moral for me to mutilate myself, in the privacy of my own home? Or quietly poison myself with alcohol, or kill myself? Is reprehensible or repugnant the same as immoral? If it is immoral, is that immorality just because I could become a burden to others (physically or psychologically) by my actions, or at minimum, because I am not pulling my weight in society?

If I were lost on a desert island, would I be moral-free? Would it be OK for me to torment the small creatures I caught for dinner? Cats do that and we don't think they are immoral. In fact, I think we are pretty fuzzy about the whole idea of Evil and Morality when it is applied to anything but humans interacting with other humans.

When Melkor was chained up and stuck in the outer reaches of the world, not interacting with anyone, but having some mighty black thoughts, was he still Evil? Were his thoughts Immoral?

[solicitr]

Yes. Evil ultimately is defined by one's relationship with the Almighty.

Of course, that's the theistic answer.

"Which comes back to the origin question. It matters because it defines what morals are: social rules. If you never deal with another person, it's impossible to act morally or immorally. It takes two (or more) to be moral, or immoral."

I'm not buying it. After all, as soon as you get to "or more" two can easily decide that it's "moral" to kill and eat the third.

[axordil]

And to decide that is probably immoral.

Unless the third was planning to do it to them first, to return to a state of amoral bliss.

[solicitr]

And to decide that is probably immoral.

Sez who?

[yovargas]

After all, as soon as you get to "or more" two can easily decide that it's "moral" to kill and eat the third.

They can decide that's what they think is moral. Doesn't mean they'd be right.

[Inanna]

After all, as soon as you get to "or more" two can easily decide that it's "moral" to kill and eat the third.

They can decide that's what they think is moral. Doesn't mean they'd be right.

Which brings to light the flaw in considering morality as only defined by social norms, as well as the problem in defining morality.

[axordil]

Would it be moral for me to mutilate myself, in the privacy of my own home? Or quietly poison myself with alcohol, or kill myself?

If your home is out in the middle of nowhere, and your family is all dead, and you have no friends...it's neither moral nor immoral, but amoral.

Is reprehensible or repugnant the same as immoral?

Often and no. But the former pretty much requires someone else judge an action, and no other people means no judgment.

If I were lost on a desert island, would I be moral-free?

Pretty much.

Would it be OK for me to torment the small creatures I caught for dinner?

It would be neither OK or not OK. It might have long-term consequences for your state of mind if you were ever off the island again, but this thought experiment assumes it's only you, period.

we are pretty fuzzy about the whole idea of Evil and Morality when it is applied to anything but humans interacting with other humans.

That's because animals aren't humans, and morality is a human concept.

When Melkor was chained up and stuck in the outer reaches of the world, not interacting with anyone, but having some mighty black thoughts, was he still Evil? Were his thoughts Immoral?

As soon as one presupposes an omniscient and omnipotent being, one can't be alone, so it's outside the bounds of the thought experiment.


If you only have one person, their behavior can't be considered moral or immoral, since there is no one else to be hurt, or to be helped, for that matter. You can't steal from someone who isn't there. You can't hurt or kill someone who isn't there. You can't put someone's welfare ahead of yours if there's no one else there. You can't harm society when there is no society to be harmed. One person, alone, becomes a moral singularity.

Add another person and a whole realm of actions become both possible and consequential.

[Primula Baggins]

I would add that the Christian viewpoint would be that a single person can do immoral things to himself, such as self-mutilation or addiction or general hateful thoughts, because the viewpoint is that you have a soul that's immortal and can be blighted by such actions. And, of course, because not taking proper care of your body, deliberately harming or neglecting it, is being disrespectful of the gift of being alive.

[axordil]

Again, that's all essentially theistic. If you presuppose a theistic basis for morality, all bets are off, because whatever God says goes. Thus there's no point in discussing that scenario.

Now, one might make an argument that some actions might cause one damage, physically or psychologically, and that those actions are immoral because they cause harm. I would say those actions are just what they are: damaging. I can damage myself accidentally too, and it's not generally considered immoral, even though I can end up just as hurt or dead.

[yovargas]

we are pretty fuzzy about the whole idea of Evil and Morality when it is applied to anything but humans interacting with other humans.

That's because animals aren't humans, and morality is a human concept.

I'm glad somebody else said it before me.

[narya]

I've heard Good and Evil boiled down, in a Catholic context, to:
Good = God
Evil = Absence of God
(which is a little bit tricky to do if God is everywhere)

But what is Good and Evil in an Atheistic context?

[axordil]

Decentralized, like a distributed network model.

[narya]

(quoted from narya) we are pretty fuzzy about the whole idea of Evil and Morality when it is applied to anything but humans interacting with other humans.

That's because animals aren't humans, and morality is a human concept.

I'm glad somebody else said it before me.

I was thinking about humans interacting with animals. There's the whole moral issue of hurting animals for pleasure. I think deliberate animal cruelty (cock fighting, when the cocks are equipped with steel razor spurs, for example) is clearly immoral, but I'm very ambivalent about hurting animals when it pertains to raising and killing them off stage, so to speak.

[vison]

We must be talking only of mature persons. If we include children, animals, or gods of some sort, we skew the experiment.

One of the first signs of maturity, IMHO, is the concept of consideration for others. To realize that your actions might hurt someone. Children do not seem naturally empathetic, to me.

[anthriel]

And to decide that is probably immoral.

Unless the third was planning to do it to them first, to return to a state of amoral bliss.

Ah, but if the understood morality in that group of three was that killing and eating your compatriots was immoral, then it doesn't matter what the third (and eaten, sadly) person was planning. The actions of the first two were still immoral.

This is a wonderfully interesting discussion (good going, Pup! Although you still owe me a Guinness, speaking of moral lapses), and I find it difficult to separate my relationship with a higher power as a motivation for morality, versus my "common sense" reactions to my fellow creatures (and I include animals, darnit) based on my own feelings of what is moral.

So I'm pretty useless to the conversation. It's an interesting read, though!

[axordil]

I think deliberate animal cruelty (cock fighting, when the cocks are equipped with steel razor spurs, for example) is clearly immoral

Obviously, though, a lot of people don't. Possibly more than do, worldwide. I happen to agree with you, but this is far from a universally accepted notion.

[axordil]

The actions of the first two were still immoral.

It's true two wrongs don't make a right. Three, however, do.

(I stole that from an ancient National Lampoon album).

[anthriel]

The actions of the first two were still immoral.

It's true two wrongs don't make a right. Three, however, do.

(I stole that from an ancient National Lampoon album).

Morality as defined by National Lampoon. We'll all need a Guinness, soon.