The Moral Imperative

[narya]

I was talking with my daughter, who worked at a bird rescue place, where they routinely put down the invasive species like starlings and pigeons. and she was saying that she can't get too worked up about it. After all, we are an invasive species, too, so the morality is fuzzy.

I think there are some of us who would rather be thoughtful and a little fuzzy about our morality, at the price of being a little uncomfortable because there is not ultimate answer. I'd rather have a morality that makes you think about what your consequences are, rather than a morality that says "do it this way, always, and you will be right".

[Inanna]

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.

Well that's true for a lot of social norms too - defining morality based on social norms would mean that you have to be willing to change the definition from society to society.

Good point, narya... and it implies changing morality, all the time.

[axordil]

Not so much changing, perhaps, as trim-tabbing, or at least acknowledging it could be necessary.

[MithLuin]

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.

It's three lefts. Three lefts make a right. (Assuming streets with 90 degree angles.) I have to admit the National Lampoon is correct on this one....


I think the source of morality (or rather, moral decision making) is ultimately the human heart, so yes, Mr. Hermit is subject to morality. His decisions are based on the thoughts he holds, and thoughts can be moral or immoral, though another person is likely to only judge actions. But just because there is no judge does not mean there is no guilt.

And a man living on a mountain by himself and plotting Unabomber-esque activity is hardly...moral. I wouldn't let him off as amoral, either - he's plain ol' regular immoral...even if no one ever gets hurt because he maintains his isolation.

Doesn't intent play a role in law?

(Of course, if he maintains his isolation because he knows he is a hazard to society, his self-imposed exile can be seen as a moral choice.)


Morality is not merely an expedient way of building a society. It's a necessary component of that, sure, but a society could be built on norms, standards and etiquette. Morality implies a much further-reaching code of conduct, going 'above and beyond' necessary laws. Opportunistic altruism and kindness are not the same thing.

'Hospitality' to strangers and those in need is not necessary for a healthy society. You could just as easily cut your losses and shun outsiders and weaklings. But I can't think of a moral system that wouldn't label you at least a cad for doing so. [By which I mean, any character who acts this way in a movie is unequivocally established as a Jerk, regardless of the moral persuasion of the audience.] Morality isn't merely...utilitarian.

[axordil]

Doesn't intent play a role in law?

Perhaps. But intent is a phantom. Results are real. Guilt is not a reliable marker of immorality: sociopaths don't feel it, and many feel it for things not truly immoral but merely embarrassing.

[yovargas]

'Hospitality' to strangers and those in need is not necessary for a healthy society.

Necessary, no; valuable, pretty certainly. In that small way, that society is more likely to thrive and prosper. In that sense, yes, it is utilitarian.

I question and doubt any moral edict that does not prevent harm or encourage success (er, by which I mean the opposite of harm).

[solicitr]

Necessary, no; valuable, pretty certainly. In that small way, that society is more likely to thrive and prosper. In that sense, yes, it is utilitarian.

Really? It would seem that the old horror-movie cliche, the habit of killing and eating strangers, would be perfectly utilitarian. (Actually, some New Guinea aboriginals pretty much fall or fell into that pattern).

[narya]

Hospitality to strangers sounds well and good, but there are few of us who actually do it. Last night I sat on the commuter train on my way home and watched a man from South Africa go on and on loudly about how awful violence is, and how much it upsets him that his "brothers"were killed recently right near here. He was clearly not following the social norms and I am fairly confident, as a layperson, in saying that he was mentally ill. As each person came into the train, he would fixed his eyes on him, ask him what he thought of violence, and ranted on about it, until the person physically turned away from him. I must admit I did so, too. But as I left, I looked him in the eye and said I thought violence was awful, too, said a few kind words and shook his hand when he proffered it. He thanked me, and called me "sister", and told me he was from South Africa. There were tears in his eyes.

I probably wouldn't have done it if I hadn't been thinking about morality. You guys are a bad influence on me.

[Primula Baggins]

Best thing I've heard all day.

Soli, it seems to me that living in the utilitarian society where people regularly kill and eat strangers would entail a somewhat higher risk of being killed and eaten oneself over the course of a lifetime. I have to admit that I prefer a society where the main risk is encountering someone who makes a rude remark; and probably society in general would benefit from the difference, given that rude remarks generally don't end someone's productive life or orphan their children.

[solicitr]

Oh, I certainly prefer it as well. But the question, as I recall it, was whether our moral code which condemns chowing down on the tourists is merely *pragmatic*, rather than based on a system of morality with other roots than mere utility.

The practice of killing strangers in New Guinea is utilitarian: it arises principally out of tribal-territorial issues in a hunter-gatherer economy where food is limited; it's not all that unusual. Taking it to the next level and getting all Hannibal Lecter on them is largely magico-religious..... but they also don't get much protein in their diets. Still, it's been going on for tens of thousands of years, and they're still there.

Actually in practice it appears that individual tribesmen who encounter each other in the forest will go to great lengths trying to work out how they might be distantly related, so that neither has to be an entree.

[Frelga]

It's easy to look down on the cannibalistic tribes. Not very fair, probably, unless one lives in the society that never waged war. Because if one IS to go to war, then the straightforward goal of providing food to one's family seems more moral than, say, enslaving other people or imposing your religion or ideology on them.

[solicitr]

Now, what about a society which encourages the sacrificing not of Outsiders, but its own (with or without gormandizing)? On what basis are we to say that, say, the Aztecs were wrong?

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

On what basis are we to say that, say, the Aztecs were wrong?

On the basis that there is an objective morality out there even if we may get the specifics wrong. It we want to claim neutrality on the Aztecs because we have never lived their society, then morality would be a relativistic endeavor. Morality would be at the whim of a culture than anything more substantial.

[yovargas]

On the basis that a society that doesn't kill its own members is almost certainly to be more succesful than one that does.

[solicitr]

On the basis that a society that doesn't kill its own members is almost certainly to be more succesful than one that does.

What about a society that suffers from extreme overpopulation?

[yovargas]

On the basis that a society that doesn't kill its own members is almost certainly to be more succesful than one that does.

What about a society that suffers from extreme overpopulation?

Than morality gets very, very difficult.

[vison]

On what basis are we to say that, say, the Aztecs were wrong?

On the basis that there is an objective morality out there even if we may get the specifics wrong. It we want to claim neutrality on the Aztecs because we have never lived their society, then morality would be a relativistic endeavor. Morality would be at the whim of a culture than anything more substantial.

The Aztecs were very successful for a time. But they are gone, now, as a "major civilization". Many causes, but gone, nonetheless. I do think that in some fashion their religious rites were a factor in that, that there was some underlying realization or concern or worry or SOMETHING that it couldn't be right to cut the living heart out of another person and then . . well, one of the things they did was to eat that heart. Some Christian sects have a similar ritual, but it has been "symbolized", rather than actually done. That is far less destructive to a society.

Morality is some what "relativistic" I think. But I also think that we, as humans, are working toward a morality that will suit pretty well everyone on Earth. Whether it can be called "objective" I don't know, because we are bound to be rather subjective in evaluating it, since we live it. And when will the glorious day come? I wish I knew. When I look over the past 100 years I think I am going to have to call most of that back.

[vison]

On the basis that a society that doesn't kill its own members is almost certainly to be more succesful than one that does.

What about a society that suffers from extreme overpopulation?

Than morality gets very, very difficult.

Our world presently suffers from extreme overpopulation and the extreme will get more extreme. How do we deal with it? Well, Darfur is one example. That's our future. Actually, that's our past, as well.

We wealthy North Americans are somewhat insulated from this extreme, but I think our turn is coming.

[Frelga]

Our world presently suffers from extreme overpopulation and the extreme will get more extreme. How do we deal with it? Well, Darfur is one example. That's our future. Actually, that's our past, as well.

We wealthy North Americans are somewhat insulated from this extreme, but I think our turn is coming.

The thing about overpopulation is, it gets solved within a few generations with easily acccessible, safe birth control. To maintain the level of population, most couples must have at least three children survive to adulthood to replace themselves and those people who for whatever reason do not procreate.

Of course, an old-age-heavy population creates its own problems, such as supporting the aging, but those are solvable in a modern society, and probably won't be major in a less developed economy as life expectations are shorter.

[Primula Baggins]

This is why "women's issues" such as reproductive rights and access to education are not some peripheral luxury, beloved by liberals but first on the chopping block when money gets tight or there is a war to fight.

"Women's issues" are everyone's issues. They are the key to a survivable future.