Morality

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/teen-killers-just-felt-right/2007/04/24/1177180615743.html



As the girls sat stony-faced in court today, Prosecutor Simon Stone said they had confessed that after partying with Eliza on the Saturday night they decided to kill her.
"Sunday morning me and (her) woke up, and we were just talking, and for some reason we just decided to kill her," one of the girls told police in her interview.
"We just did it because we felt like it, it is hard to explain," the other girl said.
"I knew we had wanted to kill someone before.
"We knew it was wrong, but it didn't feel wrong at all, it just felt right."



I was brought up a Xian, (OK, a Catholic). It was easy to have a concept of morality, (as flawed as it turned out to be). Such acts as the one described were wrong.

Without religion, (as flawed as it is), what else is there in terms of institutions to teach a concept of morality to prevent, (as much as they can be), acts such as this? Parents by themselves in our modern urban world don't have the authority or depth of history to inculcate a sense of morality and justice? If parents aren't able to do such a thing, do we just have loose cannons like these two turning up?

[fuelair]

Uh, there have always been "loose cannons" like this - even in the most strongly religious of times. Check w/ historians and psychiatrists on this.

[Katana]

There are a lot of very religious "loose cannons" everywhere.

[Miss Anthrope]

It's hard to believe for a second that these girls were not exposed to moral lessons in their life. Anyone with access to books, TV, or a radio--or other human beings-- has been exposed to the simple concept of empathy or at the very least, the legal ramifications of killing another human being.

Sociopaths, by their very nature, will not be dissuaded from their impulses by religion or anything else. From Wikipedia:

Antisocial personality disorder (abbreviated APD or ASPD) is a psychiatric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatric) diagnosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnosis) in the DSM-IV-TR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disord ers) recognizable by the disordered individual's disregard for social rules and norms, impulsive behavior, and indifference to the rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right) and feelings of others.People who are just chatting and decide to kill someone, having "wanted to for some time", probably fit the diagnosis above. Religion, or a lack thereof, most certainly would have no impact on this behavior.

[Phil]

I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die.

[EGarrett]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/teen-killers-just-felt-right/2007/04/24/1177180615743.html

I was brought up a Xian, (OK, a Catholic). It was easy to have a concept of morality, (as flawed as it turned out to be). Such acts as the one described were wrong.

Without religion, (as flawed as it is), what else is there in terms of institutions to teach a concept of morality to prevent, (as much as they can be), acts such as this? Parents by themselves in our modern urban world don't have the authority or depth of history to inculcate a sense of morality and justice? If parents aren't able to do such a thing, do we just have loose cannons like these two turning up?They're obviously insane. No amount of moral teaching will have an effect on that.

And BTW, I'd put both those girls in the electric chair. See if that "feels right."

[Endymion]

People who are just chatting and decide to kill someone, having "wanted to for some time", probably fit the diagnosis above. Religion, or a lack thereof, most certainly would have no impact on this behavior.

The argument from some religious people is that without religion and good old family values more and more children develop antisocial personality disorder. Personality disorders are an axis II diagnosis along with mental retardation. Axis II disorders have both genetic and environmental causes. I believe they generally can not be treated with psychotropic medications.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

The argument from some religious people is that without religion and good old family values more and more children develop antisocial personality disorder. Personality disorders are an axis II diagnosis along with mental retardation. Axis II disorders have both genetic and environmental causes. I believe they generally can not be treated with psychotropic medications.
Religion also had/have a role in threatening people to do right. They planted the idea of an invisible, all seeing, cop. "Do right and get this reward, do wrong, and you will be punished."

[a_unique_person]

It's hard to believe for a second that these girls were not exposed to moral lessons in their life. Anyone with access to books, TV, or a radio--or other human beings-- has been exposed to the simple concept of empathy or at the very least, the legal ramifications of killing another human being.

Sociopaths, by their very nature, will not be dissuaded from their impulses by religion or anything else. From Wikipedia:

People who are just chatting and decide to kill someone, having "wanted to for some time", probably fit the diagnosis above. Religion, or a lack thereof, most certainly would have no impact on this behavior.

I think I am asking if we need a systematic teaching of morals, rather than just an ad hoc one. I am no longer a Catholic, am an atheist, but still think we need strong social institutions to have a healthy society. I am not so much in favour of removing religion as replacing it with something better.

As you say, however, in this case it may be that nothing would have stopped the murder, the two girls were just genuine sociopaths who happened to meet up with each other.

[CapelDodger]

As you say, however, in this case it may be that nothing would have stopped the murder, the two girls were just genuine sociopaths who happened to meet up with each other.

On past experience it's more likely to be one sociopath and one easily-led, socially inept follower that the sociopath latched onto. At least this pair had a short career.

[Beerina]

A religious person's only objection is they didn't perform this killing without prior consent of God.

[drkitten]

I think I am asking if we need a systematic teaching of morals, rather than just an ad hoc one.

That's an easy one.

No.

Without exception, every attempt to create a "system of morals" has resulted in abuse and immorality, because the question of human morality is too complex to be reducible to a formal system. The proof is left as an exercise for the history section of your local library.

Absent an actual system of morals (as opposed to a collection of ad-hoc judgements), the idea of systematic instruction is impossible. You can't systematically instruct ad-hoc material.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Without exception, every attempt to create a "system of morals" has resulted in abuse and immorality, because the question of human morality is too complex to be reducible to a formal system. The proof is left as an exercise for the history section of your local library.
Trying to make a new moral system may even be dangerous. A worst version of scientology might come out. It might be easier to evolve the moral systems we got. Drop the images, expose the stories to intense rational thought, keep the moral lessons.

[Piggy]

I am asking if we need a systematic teaching of morals
Whose morals? Whose system? Whose teachers?

In order to establish a "systematic teaching of morals", someone must be empowered to decide what the morals should be and who is authorized as a teacher.

And there's the rub.

Once you empower a group as teachers of morality, you risk their inevitable abuse of that power.

What happens when the corrupting influence of such power becomes too great a temptation, or attracts the merely power-hungry, and the office inevitably becomes a vehicle for indoctrination and control?

What happens when a new group, with its own self-serving ideas of morality, comes to control the helm?

Who will stop them? Who can stop them, if they are the determiners of what is right and what is wrong?

In reality, this is an impossibility. No matter who is set up as the teacher of morality, no matter whose system is chosen as the standard, the biological and physical fact is that it is still up to each of us, in our own minds, to accept or reject what is taught.

No matter what standard is adopted, it is still the individual who decides, yes, this is right, or no, this is wrong, no matter what the authorities say.

[qayak]

That's an easy one.

No.

Without exception, every attempt to create a "system of morals" has resulted in abuse and immorality, because the question of human morality is too complex to be reducible to a formal system. The proof is left as an exercise for the history section of your local library.

Absent an actual system of morals (as opposed to a collection of ad-hoc judgements), the idea of systematic instruction is impossible. You can't systematically instruct ad-hoc material.

Systematic teaching of morals is not the same as a system of morals to teach.

Yes, morals should be taught systematically just like math, language and science.

[athon]

Morals aren't a system of rules. The law is. Morality includes the ability to empathise, to see one's place in a social group, to comprehend how the effect of one's actions ripples through a community. If it was a system of rules these girls needed, then why didn't the 'murder is illegal' rule come up?

As deplorable as the crime was, I think it would be worse if they tried to justify it with reference to a religious system. 'I killed him because he was atheist' seems worse to me than 'I killed him because I had the urge to'. The latter, while brutal, is honest and I could deal with it better.

What would have prevented this crime? Who knows, but I do know that religious conviction would have had little impact in reducing one's compulsions to act according to their base desires.

Athon

[EHLO]

I agree that law (akin to English common law at least) does a pretty good job of expressing contemporary moral values.

The trouble is that just knowing what the law is, and even why any particular law is in place does not stop people breaking them.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Religion also had/have a role in threatening people to do right. They planted the idea of an invisible, all seeing, cop. "Do right and get this reward, do wrong, and you will be punished."

I believe that's considered pre-conventional morality--the sort that normal children grow beyond.

In other words, behavior motivated solely by seeking rewards and avoiding punishment isn't based on morality.

[TheAntiLuddite]

I am no longer a Catholic, am an atheist, but still think we need strong social institutions to have a healthy society.

Moral systems are designed to produce societies in which the largest majority of the individuals within those societies can peacefully coexist. Civilization depends upon such systems. In order for any moral system to work per its design, a significant portion of the population must be commited to social harmony. But here's the rub: what is good for the society may not be best, or even good, for the individual. If I rob a bank, the outcome is definitely good for me (I'm now rich), and definitely bad for the people whose money was in the bank. You will always have individuals within a society who will not play by the rules, so to speak, for a variety of reasons, and there is no comprehensive moral code, either religious or secular, that can prevent such behavior. These girls wanted to kill someone, and so they did.

[murphyr]

Do we have any evidence of the kind of religious background these kids came from? Is it possible that they were raised in a religious home? Doesn't the fact that they acknowledged prior to committing the murder that "murder is wrong" mean they did have some set of moral guidelines that they simply chose to ignore?

[Piggy]

Moral systems are designed to produce societies in which the largest majority of the individuals within those societies can peacefully coexist.
Really? I thought they were designed to keep powerful people in power.

The key word here is "designed".

Biologically, as a social species, we do find moral principles which pervade human culture that tend to help preserve the social group: Don't steal what is recognized as other folks' stuff, don't kill people just because you want to, don't intentionally harm others for merely selfish reasons, don't produce offspring with near kin, etc. (All within the tribe, of course -- outlanders, well, they got it coming.)

But beyond these basics, there's a plethora of highly variable "moral" principles instituted largely to maintain the political/social status quo: Don't worship the wrong god, don't reproduce with someone from another social group, don't express doubts about the opinions of religious or political leaders, don't eat the way foreigners do, and so forth.

A very enlightening exercise is to tease apart the various layers of God's commandments in Exodus, for example. They change radically from the most ancient passages from the nomadic times, to the most recent passages from settled society dominated by a separate and priveleged priestly caste.

The very oldest passages are primitive and brutal -- sacrifice your first born animals, harvests, and sons; make altars only from dirt and unhewn stone (and no steps!); that kind of thing -- while the latest passages describe a God who demands a temple that sounds like it was decorated by Liberace, who is fussier than a 4 year old when it comes to what people should eat and how it should be prepared, and on and on and on.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Systematic teaching of morals is not the same as a system of morals to teach.

Yes, morals should be taught systematically just like math, language and science.
They sure should, that way no one could claim (or pretend) not to know better. Right now, we just assume they "should know better."

[Piggy]

They sure should, that way no one could claim (or pretend) not to know better. Right now, we just assume they "should know better."

What if the people teaching the system are the Taliban? Or the Khmer Rouge?

Then perhaps freeminded persons do, in fact, know better.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I believe that's considered pre-conventional morality--the sort that normal children grow beyond.
Well I didn't know what kind it was, but I know some adults that act in accordance with what their religion says because of the reward, and the punishment.

In other words, behavior motivated solely by seeking rewards and avoiding punishment isn't based on morality.
I didn't say solely, the reward and punishment provides that extra kick. "God is watching you."

[a_unique_person]

That's an easy one.

No.

Without exception, every attempt to create a "system of morals" has resulted in abuse and immorality, because the question of human morality is too complex to be reducible to a formal system. The proof is left as an exercise for the history section of your local library.

Absent an actual system of morals (as opposed to a collection of ad-hoc judgements), the idea of systematic instruction is impossible. You can't systematically instruct ad-hoc material.

Could we have one based on the scientific model? A sceptical, evidence based one with no wrote subservience to a mythical authority?

[Piggy]

Could we have one based on the scientific model? A sceptical, evidence based one with no wrote subservience to a mythical authority?
Compiled by whom? Taught by whom? Enforced by whom?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

What if the people teaching the system are the Taliban? Or the Khmer Rouge?

Then perhaps freeminded persons do, in fact, know better.
Or the Nazis. The shame is, other freeminded people knew that they were wrong, and did nothing. The Vietnamese invasion stopped the Khmer Rouge, (though that might not have been the intent) and they got economic sanctions for it.

Fearing new teachers is what led me to suggest evolving the religions we already know.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I didn't say solely, the reward and punishment provides that extra kick. "God is watching you."

So what? A moral person doesn't behave because of fear of reward and punishment. That's my point.
Avoid punishment and seeking reward is just self-interest. When you grow up, you should get beyond that.

[athon]

Morality isn't ever 'designed'. It arises out of a shared system of values and beliefs. For instance, a shared value in limiting the suffering in individuals who you don't know personally. Or a shared value in making it easier for others in your community to succeed in achieving their goals. Nobody stands up and proclaims these values to be 'true'; they are things we are raised to embrace by observing the behaviour of those we love and respect, such as parents, siblings and role models.

Selecting morals to enforce requires a system of enforcement which is not necessarily linked with an individual's values. If I have no value in feeling that you should not have to feel physical pain, then enforcing a moral which defeats such behaviour is no different to enforcing a rule or law. It's no longer a moral but rather a social restraint enforced by a threat of punishment.

No, enforcing moral behaviour and expecting it to remain as a moral behaviour is nonsense. In other words, we can role model moral behaviour and even open a discourse on what we in society view as moralistic, but we cannot teach morals as we would any other rule.

Athon

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

So what? A moral person doesn't behave because of fear of reward and punishment. That's my point.
People have all sorts of reasons for why they do what they do, good, bad, and otherwise.

Avoid punishment and seeking reward is just self-interest.
So what? Self-interest is one of the base motivators of life. Avoiding pain, and seeking reward (in all their forms) is what life does.

When you grow up, you should get beyond that.
You should... but some of us never grow up, and who is to say what that is?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Morality isn't ever 'designed'. It arises out of a shared system of values and beliefs. For instance, a shared value in limiting the suffering in individuals who you don't know personally. Or a shared value in making it easier for others in your community to succeed in achieving their goals. Nobody stands up and proclaims these values to be 'true'; they are things we are raised to embrace by observing the behaviour of those we love and respect, such as parents, siblings and role models.

Selecting morals to enforce requires a system of enforcement which is not necessarily linked with an individual's values. If I have no value in feeling that you should not have to feel physical pain, then enforcing a moral which defeats such behaviour is no different to enforcing a rule or law. It's no longer a moral but rather a social restraint enforced by a threat of punishment.

No, enforcing moral behaviour and expecting it to remain as a moral behaviour is nonsense. In other words, we can role model moral behaviour and even open a discourse on what we in society view as moralistic, but we cannot teach morals as we would any other rule.

That is a good start, there are some things that are enforced (loosely, I would grant) with a look.

[polkablues]

So what? Self-interest is one of the base motivators of life.


I would even suggest it's the primary motivator (perhaps even the only motivator), even in the construction of moral guidelines. For example, if it is accepted that killing is immoral, that serves each of our own self interests, because it will make us less likely to be killed ourselves. We decide that theft of property is immoral, and that reduces the risk of our own property being stolen.

[Wat Tyler]

Religion also had/have a role in threatening people to do right. They planted the idea of an invisible, all seeing, cop. "Do right and get this reward, do wrong, and you will be punished."

The fatal flaw in which model is that once anyone has worked out that it is a pile of steaming dung, then they know that they no longer have anything to fear in transgressing the behavioural commandments of the said religion.

A much sounder basis for morality is a teaching of the real-world consequences of not conforming to it - everyone in society is harmed, and so if you transgress you will be caught and punished.

Which can be illustrated by the teaching of history, and the use of reasoned argument.
There is no need to invoke anyone's imaginary Overlord.

[CapelDodger]

Really? I thought they were designed to keep powerful people in power.

The key word here is "designed".

The two - social stability and dynastic stability - are not incompatible. People will put up with privilege for a few if they get security in return.

Biologically, as a social species, we do find moral principles which pervade human culture that tend to help preserve the social group: Don't steal what is recognized as other folks' stuff, don't kill people just because you want to, don't intentionally harm others for merely selfish reasons, don't produce offspring with near kin, etc. (All within the tribe, of course -- outlanders, well, they got it coming.)

Well put.

I think there are two grades of innate human morality, one applying to the preceived in-group and the one that's swamped by innate xenophobia.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

The fatal flaw in which model is that once anyone has worked out that it is a pile of steaming dung, then they know that they no longer have anything to fear in transgressing the behavioural commandments of the said religion.
When I moved away from religion I still thought that some commandments made sense, so I continued to follow them. But, that only showed me that there was "something" there, and religion was trying to express it.



There is no need to invoke anyone's imaginary Overlord.
In the very deep past, there was a reason. It was the best they could come up at the time.

[Wat Tyler]

When I moved away from religion I still thought that some commandments made sense, so I continued to follow them. But, that only showed me that there was "something" there, and religion was trying to express it.


I'd suggest to you that your interpretation of the existence of a moral code 'proving' that 'something is there' is another subordination of your critical faculties to 'feelings' again - and you already know how I rate the ability of 'feelings' to provide an accurate basis for anything.

I'd also like to you note that, per the Bible, Abram (who later becomes Abraham) starts his life in the settled urban civilisation of the city-state of Ur- a 'pagan' Sumerian civilisation which pre-dates the monotheistic Semitic civilisations of the Jews and Arabs.

It would have been impossible for any civilisation to function without a moral/legal code, and yet the pagan Sumerians had a settled urban civilisation and the division of labour long before even the Ten Commandments were written down in Genesis, or Abram/Moses/Akhenaten/Zoroaster invented monotheism.


In the very deep past, there was a reason. It was the best they could come up at the time.

Oh, I agree with you on this bit - clearly, some justification for the moral code was needed at the time - and the threat of incurring the wrath of the God(s) is a very good (probably the best) 'stick' with which to beat a pre-literate society into submission, but...

...I assert that, as we are no-longer in the very deep past, or a pre-literate, Bronze Age, agrarian society, we should be able to move on to more effective/efficient models/bases for our societal rules/structures, and, furthermore;

that in our modern, literate, globally-connected, urbanised civilisation, to persuade people to 'behave themselves' we can use the 'carrot' of rational evidence of the benefits of adherence to our moral code and the 'stick' of the threat of detection and punishment in this life, rather than having to rely on the nonsensical threat of post-mortem supernatural punishment.

[a_unique_person]

The fatal flaw in which model is that once anyone has worked out that it is a pile of steaming dung, then they know that they no longer have anything to fear in transgressing the behavioural commandments of the said religion.

A much sounder basis for morality is a teaching of the real-world consequences of not conforming to it - everyone in society is harmed, and so if you transgress you will be caught and punished.

Which can be illustrated by the teaching of history, and the use of reasoned argument.
There is no need to invoke anyone's imaginary Overlord.

Which makes sense, but someone has to do it. Schools at the moment appear to have this role allocated to them by default.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I'd suggest to you that your interpretation of the existence of a moral code 'proving' that 'something is there' is another subordination of your critical faculties to 'feelings' again - and you already know how I rate the ability of 'feelings' to provide an accurate basis for anything.
They can tell you whether or not you like someone. They can even influence you to help someone you don't even know.

I'd also like to you note that, per the Bible, Abram (who later becomes Abraham) starts his life in the settled urban civilisation of the city-state of Ur- a 'pagan' Sumerian civilisation which pre-dates the monotheistic Semitic civilisations of the Jews and Arabs.

It would have been impossible for any civilisation to function without a moral/legal code, and yet the pagan Sumerians had a settled urban civilisation and the division of labour long before even the Ten Commandments were written down in Genesis, or Abram/Moses/Akhenaten/Zoroaster invented monotheism.
I am not talking about anything written in any book about what God said. I am talking about what people felt before they made up the concept of God, the stuff they follow even when they have no God.



...I assert that, as we are no-longer in the very deep past, or a pre-literate, Bronze Age, agrarian society, we should be able to move on to more effective/efficient models/bases for our societal rules/structures, and, furthermore;
I agree.

that in our modern, literate, globally-connected, urbanised civilisation, to persuade people to 'behave themselves' we can use the 'carrot' of rational evidence of the benefits of adherence to our moral code and the 'stick' of the threat of detection and punishment in this life, rather than having to rely on the nonsensical threat of post-mortem supernatural punishment.
Fine.

[Wat Tyler]

They can tell you whether or not you like someone. They can even influence you to help someone you don't even know.


Yes, they can - but that's just a bit different to providing a viable base for a whole society, isn't it?


I am not talking about anything written in any book about what God said. I am talking about what people felt before they made up the concept of God, the stuff they follow even when they have no God.


Ah, OK - but that (the beliefs of long-dead pre-literate people) is unknowable.


I agree.

Fine.

Cool.
:solved1

Numpty that I am, I'd thought that you were arguing in favour of a return to 'that ole time Religion'.
D'oh!

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Yes, they can - but that's just a bit different to providing a viable base for a whole society, isn't it?
The respect for life, and how we feel about (and towards) each other is what society is based on.

Ah, OK - but that (the beliefs of long-dead pre-literate people) is unknowable.
I'm thinking that they felt (or had the precursors for it) like we do, before they knew what to think.


Numpty that I am, I'd thought that you were arguing in favour of a return to 'that ole time Religion'.
D'oh!
No, not me. I like all the freedoms (and technology) we have now that it has been subdued.

[Gertrude]

Without religion, (as flawed as it is), what else is there in terms of institutions to teach a concept of morality to prevent, (as much as they can be), acts such as this? Parents by themselves in our modern urban world don't have the authority or depth of history to inculcate a sense of morality and justice? If parents aren't able to do such a thing, do we just have loose cannons like these two turning up?

Why should we need institutions to teach morality? Is morality really something to be taught?

I believe children that are sourrounded by adults who are themselves good examples to follow will for the most part pick up on it. I don't think you can "inculcate a sense of morality". You can lead by example and treat children the way you wish them to treat others as adults.

(No studies to support, though... just personnal experience)

[CapelDodger]

Why should we need institutions to teach morality? Is morality really something to be taught?

I believe children that are sourrounded by adults who are themselves good examples to follow will for the most part pick up on it. I don't think you can "inculcate a sense of morality". You can lead by example and treat children the way you wish them to treat others as adults.

(No studies to support, though... just personnal experience)

I too have no qualifications to declare but my humanity. I agree with you but I would put it a little differently. Children will pick up on what adults find admirable. We all aspire to admiration because it comes with the species. As does the dread of rejection.

It's the admiration that defines the "good example". Not every social groups's concept of a "good example" is the same as ours.

I'm child-free myself, but I have found that the most impressive thing you can say to an ankle-biter getting out of line is "We don't do that". With authority and timbre and that ten-times-your-size effect. They tend to go off into a long ponder - after all, they're new at this game. Low admiration, high rejection. Just watch them bend to your will ... ;)

Then they take it out on their parents when they get back home, but is that my problem? I think not.

[Gertrude]

I too have no qualifications to declare but my humanity. I agree with you but I would put it a little differently. Children will pick up on what adults find admirable. We all aspire to admiration because it comes with the species. As does the dread of rejection.

It's the admiration that defines the "good example". Not every social groups's concept of a "good example" is the same as ours.

I'm child-free myself, but I have found that the most impressive thing you can say to an ankle-biter getting out of line is "We don't do that". With authority and timbre and that ten-times-your-size effect. They tend to go off into a long ponder - after all, they're new at this game. Low admiration, high rejection. Just watch them bend to your will ... ;)

Then they take it out on their parents when they get back home, but is that my problem? I think not.

Agreed. We tend to imitate those that we admire. But a strong respect must precede. And unfortunately, it is not an easy task to gain the respect of those who were never surrounded by respectable people. In my opinion, no amount of rational discussion will equate the example set by a right, honest, respectful person who can listen to others. Unfortunately, it appears to be a rare race 'round here.

And all over, you have parents saying they "inculcate moral values" to their children. But sir, what do YOU do as an example of moral rectitude? Often, not much...

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I think we're forgetting about the role of genetics here. Genetically humans have a lot of their behavior already uploaded into their genomes. Humans are social animals and thus have evolved numerous traits for existing inside of a society including Reciprocal altruism and Non-reciprocal altruism.

[dglas]

I have never encountered a thoroughly successful systemic approach to morality, and certainly there have been a great many attempts to develop them. From realist appeals to moral sources, descriptivism, prescriptivism, emotivism, psychological necessity, down to deontic logics, almost all of them fail to capture one or more critical aspects of morality while almost all of them seem to capture some aspect or another. Even moral relativists usually speak of moralities as being objective within a particular setting.

In my tentative view, what is most often the failure is the desire to impose objectivity in moral codes wthout considering how "universalizability" works in the real world. Universalizability is the idea that rules, in this case moral ones, appy to all equally. Theorists often attempt to incorporate (i.e. presciptively enforce) "universalizability" in either the structure or the particular content (usually both) of this or that understanding of morality. I think this is where a primary error lies. It is the unthinking drive for Truth in morality. I suspect that trying to capture Truth in morality is about as reasonable an enterprise as claiming certainty in knowledge - which is to say, not at all. (Go figure; I'm a skeptic, right?) :D

I suspect it is simply enough to permit for the possibility of universalizability without requiring it. Therefore, I suspect that morality really has more to do with what I like to call realms of reasonable expectations, with "realms" and "reasonable" being defined via constant negotiation. This idea is a work in progress - I'm trying to take a step forward by taking a step back. It seems to me that, like our other social contructions, morality is what we agree to think it is.

Now this provides me with an answer to anyone who asks for the source of my morality. "I derive it from the reasonable expectations of myself and those around me." How interesting this answer is an open question...

I approach the role of genetics with a degree of wariness. While there well may be something interesting to consider there, I question whether it might turn out to be another quest for absolute Truth in morality, but based on biology this time. I suspect it is the enterprise itself that is in error. Biology (genetics) may suggest tendencies, but to refer to them as morals is, I think, a misunderstanding of what morality is and how it works. But, of course, it's another idea to bring to the negotiating table.

Reflecting back on the original post, I entertain the idea that parents, in fact, do have the abilty to reinforce morality in children by teaching them the importance of respect for the reasonable expectations of others. If that primary understanding is developed, the rest, it seems to me, follows...

[a_unique_person]

Why should we need institutions to teach morality? Is morality really something to be taught?

I believe children that are sourrounded by adults who are themselves good examples to follow will for the most part pick up on it. I don't think you can "inculcate a sense of morality". You can lead by example and treat children the way you wish them to treat others as adults.

(No studies to support, though... just personnal experience)

Pretty well everything we learn is taught, if not directly and methodically, it is absorbed from our culture and family.

Why not have a formal education on the matter as well as an informal one. Not a wrote, by the book experience, but at least one that raises the basic issues and how to find out how to answer them. These girls seem to have missed out on the most basic "Don't Kill" and "When caught, you will be sent to prison" ideas somehow. Even if you are a sociopath, you can at least be reasoned with to a certain degree.

[Gertrude]

Pretty well everything we learn is taught, if not directly and methodically, it is absorbed from our culture and family.

Why not have a formal education on the matter as well as an informal one. Not a wrote, by the book experience, but at least one that raises the basic issues and how to find out how to answer them. These girls seem to have missed out on the most basic "Don't Kill" and "When caught, you will be sent to prison" ideas somehow. Even if you are a sociopath, you can at least be reasoned with to a certain degree.

You are right that a lot of what we learn is taught... often inadvertantly. But I do question the value of a formal education on a topic such as morality. It already takes a predisposition to rely on rationality, and not impulsion, when facing a moral issue.

Morality is not just a set of rights and wrongs. I believe it is in great part a matter of respect towards the other. Or at least, a matter of acknowledgment of the other as a person. And unfortunately, this cannot be taught formally. You have to be respected before you can respect. Telling a kid that he must respect others for that and that reason will do nothing if he has been treated like c**p all his life.

What makes you say that a sociopath can be reasoned? I would think quite the opposite.

[Piggy]

Why not have a formal education on the matter as well as an informal one. Not a rote, by the book experience, but at least one that raises the basic issues and how to find out how to answer them.

I have to return to the question: To whom will you give the authority to determine the curriculum and materials, to guide the discussion? And what happens as power shifts, and new groups move into those positions?

There is no guarantee that, once started, such a program would retain its original character or purpose.

Shaping the moral views of young people is a tempting a prize. Those who are likely to want to sieze it, and control it, and not let it go... are the last people we should want to have it.

[Piggy]

What makes you say that a sociopath can be reasoned? I would think quite the opposite.
I'm a sociopath, and I'm perfectly reasonable. In fact, I'm so reasonable that I have no morals at all.

I observe codes of conduct, and ethics. But morals? Nope.

Most folks think of sociopaths as Ted Bundy. But there are successful sociopaths out there -- people with profound social pathologies, like me, who simply cannot form the kinds of relationships "normal" people do, and who don't even understand them.

I live alone and can't imagine having someone else in my home. I have never once wanted a family, and don't understand why people do. I have no desire to date (though I get asked) and my few friends are all people who have known me since childhood and accept me. I don't intuit body language or social cues very well at all, and have had to learn how to do so consciously, and arrange my life so as to minimize the need to do so at all.

Of course, I still have a human body and brain. I feel fear, excitement, sometimes happiness tho not much but I don't really feel a desire for that. Love in some ways, I suppose, but from what I can tell not in many of the ways others do.

I have no use for morals (and trust me, I've proven that many times, but have been lucky enough to survive with my freedom) but I have the sense to understand consequences, and what needs to be done, so I'm a productive member of society now.

It can happen.

[Gertrude]

I'm a sociopath, and I'm perfectly reasonable. In fact, I'm so reasonable that I have no morals at all.

I observe codes of conduct, and ethics. But morals? Nope.

Most folks think of sociopaths as Ted Bundy. But there are successful sociopaths out there -- people with profound social pathologies, like me, who simply cannot form the kinds of relationships "normal" people do, and who don't even understand them.

I live alone and can't imagine having someone else in my home. I have never once wanted a family, and don't understand why people do. I have no desire to date (though I get asked) and my few friends are all people who have known me since childhood and accept me. I don't intuit body language or social cues very well at all, and have had to learn how to do so consciously, and arrange my life so as to minimize the need to do so at all.

Of course, I still have a human body and brain. I feel fear, excitement, sometimes happiness tho not much but I don't really feel a desire for that. Love in some ways, I suppose, but from what I can tell not in many of the ways others do.

I have no use for morals (and trust me, I've proven that many times, but have been lucky enough to survive with my freedom) but I have the sense to understand consequences, and what needs to be done, so I'm a productive member of society now.

It can happen.

Hear you. If I understand, the only thing that motivates you to observe society's code of conduct is the idea of the consequences, right? In this sense, don't you agree that no amount of rationalization will give you a sense of morality? Because the idea that I oppose to is not to inform people of the rules and consequences. What I think is useless is to "teach" morals rationally.

[Piggy]

Hear you. If I understand, the only thing that motivates you to observe society's code of conduct is the idea of the consequences, right? In this sense, don't you agree that no amount of rationalization will give you a sense of morality? Because the idea that I oppose to is not to inform people of the rules and consequences. What I think is useless is to "teach" morals rationally.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. I just happen to have a calm personality, most of the time, and learned to deal with isolation and ostracism. Best thing I ever did was stop trying to pretend to be normal, stop believing that everyone had to be sociable, and say to hell with it, I'm a loner.

But other folks with social pathologies who are more prone to anger, especially young males who feel humiliated by rejection, well, they can turn into really violent people. Others get depressed and kill themselves, or never figure out how to deal with others' ways and end up on the streets, or learn all too well how to manipulate people and become criminals, especially con artists.

So yeah, for us, the best we can do is get our minds around the consequences as early as possible and make choices about how we want our lives to turn out. Teaching morality... you'll just get clowned.

Now, you want to see a hardcore sociopath playing the morality game to manipulate others, just catch up with our old pal David "Son of Sam" Berkowitz these days (http://www.forgivenforlife.com/).

[a_unique_person]

I seem to have missed something. Morals != Ethics?

[skeptifem]

I think empathy is the key to morality. I dont know if empathy can be taught, but if it can I think it would benefit society greatly. You dont even need to have someone develop a moral system to teach specifically if you can teach someone to have empathy. It might not make someone perfectly moral but it will surely deter people from doing absolutely horrible things like murder. thats my opinion anyway.

[Piggy]

I seem to have missed something. Morals != Ethics?
That's the way I use the terms. Of course, I don't decide what words mean for everybody. I just have to find a way of making a distinction.

What I mean by "ethics" is a code of conduct based on outcomes. Why not steal? Because you can land in jail, people won't trust you, studies show it contributes to an environment where you yourself are more likely to be victimized or your neighborhood go downhill, etc. etc. etc.

What I mean by "morals" is an internal feeling for what is inherently right/wrong, good/bad. One does not steal, because it is a sin, or because it makes one a bad person, or because "my family is not that kind of family", or because one has a pang about it... "I would feel bad if I did that".

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Whose morals? Whose system? Whose teachers?

In order to establish a "systematic teaching of morals", someone must be empowered to decide what the morals should be and who is authorized as a teacher.
The church has always claimed authority, in the name of God/the creator, it just do it "perfectly." They set their standards too high, and failed to meet them perfectly. Still, they got some of it right.

Once you empower a group as teachers of morality, you risk their inevitable abuse of that power.
We take the risk with governments.

What happens when the corrupting influence of such power becomes too great a temptation, or attracts the merely power-hungry, and the office inevitably becomes a vehicle for indoctrination and control?
Like governments.

What happens when a new group, with its own self-serving ideas of morality, comes to control the helm?
Like every four years.

Who will stop them? Who can stop them, if they are the determiners of what is right and what is wrong?
We have too.


In reality, this is an impossibility. No matter who is set up as the teacher of morality, no matter whose system is chosen as the standard, the biological and physical fact is that it is still up to each of us, in our own minds, to accept or reject what is taught.
Like obeying laws?


No matter what standard is adopted, it is still the individual who decides, yes, this is right, or no, this is wrong, no matter what the authorities say.
And the law is clear... or, its being worked on to make itself better understood.