"Values" in society

[Invincible Summer]

There is the argument that without Judeo-Christian religion, the "values" which we hold today in Western society (e.g. not killing, raping, stealing, etc) would not exist.

A possible counter-argument is that even without the Bible and its Ten Commandments, people naturally do not have the urge to hurt others, and that giving all credit to Judeo-Christian religion is a bit silly.


To play Devil's advocate: where do these "values" (or I suppose one could say morals) come from? Are they inherent? If they are subjective (and thus everyone has a different value/moral standard), then wouldn't that allow for general chaos?

[danyboy27]

our society evolved around those values.
we are social animals, we live together and cooperate to live.

[Decolonize The Left]

There is the argument that without Judeo-Christian religion, the "values" which we hold today in Western society (e.g. not killing, raping, stealing, etc) would not exist.

Total and utter nonsense.

This implies two things. The first is that the existence of the Judeo-Christian tradition solidifies and codifies these values within our society - that is to say that these values do not exist outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition. But they do exist elsewhere, almost all major religions, both monotheistic and polytheistic maintain similar values to some degree.


A possible counter-argument is that even without the Bible and its Ten Commandments, people naturally do not have the urge to hurt others, and that giving all credit to Judeo-Christian religion is a bit silly.

People do have the urge to hurt others. The point of a value system is to cause the individual to reconsider instinctual drives against a moral reason. Morals and values do not replace instincts, they contextualize them within the social framework.


To play Devil's advocate: where do these "values" (or I suppose one could say morals) come from? Are they inherent? If they are subjective (and thus everyone has a different value/moral standard), then wouldn't that allow for general chaos?

If you have the time, this book (http://www.davemckay.co.uk/philosophy/nietzsche/nietzsche.php?name=1887.on.the.genealogy.of.morals .johnston.00) (Friedrich Nietzsche's On the Geneology of Morals) will answer these questions. It is a fantastic text and I highly recommend the read.

In short, our 'values' and 'morals' come from conditioning. They are not inherent, they are developed over time and differ within and throughout societies. They are subjective (though a better term would be relative).

- August

[spiltteeth]

Never heard such an argument, it really doesn't make too much sense.
Of course, if you don't believe in God, like augustwest says, Neitzche is right, even if no one, including Neitzche, can live consistently with such a view.
So, Augustwest could never say raping a small child is wrong.
Without God objective morals don't exist.
But, from a Christian perspective, an atheist can be just as or more moral than a christian, we believe everyone is innately born with objective moral sense which comes from God.
Really the only difference is I can say torturing children is objectively wrong, regardless of the time, place, or social context; an atheist can't say that.

[Decolonize The Left]

So, Augustwest could never say raping a small child is wrong.

Sure I could: raping a small child is wrong - very wrong.

Done.


Without God objective morals don't exist.

You conflate objective morals with morals. All morals are relative, theists merely declare them objective - but this doesn't make them so.

Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with relative morals.


But, from a Christian perspective, an atheist can be just as or more moral than a christian, we believe everyone is innately born with objective moral sense which comes from God.

Cool story.


Really the only difference is I can say torturing children is objectively wrong, regardless of the time, place, or social context; an atheist can't say that.

Nope.

You're just saying it's wrong. You can add 'objectively' in there, but you can't prove it, so it's not actually objective. An atheist can likewise claim that act is wrong, and they are equally as justified in that standard normative claim.

- August

[spiltteeth]

Sure I could: raping a small child is wrong - very wrong.

Done.



You conflate objective morals with morals. All morals are relative, theists merely declare them objective - but this doesn't make them so.

Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with relative morals.



Cool story.



Nope.

You're just saying it's wrong. You can add 'objectively' in there, but you can't prove it, so it's not actually objective. An atheist can likewise claim that act is wrong, and they are equally as justified in that standard normative claim.

- August

It's not about proof, I'm just saying I believe morals are objective, so I can say raping a small child is wrong. Period. Even if everyone believed in child rape or Naziism, it would still be wrong.
I can't prove it though (I assume you mean evidential proof, which is a fairly absurd standard considering you and all people believe in many things without proof - other minds etc, my standard for truth is logical consistency)

You saying raping a small child is wrong is non-sensical since you believe in relative morals (which in itself is non-sensical since they are relative you would need to measure them against an ultimate good or evil)

You would have to say - raping a small child is wrong for X according to X's societal standards because etc

So, in some societies raping a 10 yr old child is socially acceptable; why is it wrong then>?

so I guess I should have said you can't say raping a small child is wrong, and have relative values, AND be coherent

[danyboy27]

raping a children or an adult is wrong beccause science and logic show us that rape damage the mind and the body of human being.

voluntary killing or hurting another human being in an offensive way is wrong beccause somehow we need eachother to live.

if killing was permitted and widespread our society couldnt function and would quickly collapse.

that why killing and hurting someone else in an offensive manner is just plain wrong.

i dont need god to determine that.

[spiltteeth]

danyboy25;1609420]raping a children or an adult is wrong beccause science and logic show us that rape damage the mind and the body of human being.

So? Why is damaging a kids mind wrong?


voluntary killing or hurting another human being in an offensive way is wrong beccause somehow we need eachother to live.

There's plenty of people being killed all over the world all the time yet somehow I manage to live.

Your saying its ok to kill people if we don't need them to live. Nice.


if killing was permitted and widespread our society couldnt function and would quickly collapse.

I live in the USA. Our entire economy is based on conquest and killing.


that why killing and hurting someone else in an offensive manner is just plain wrong.

So if I could manage to live and still kill and rape children THEN it would be Ok?


i dont need god to determine that.

Noone said you did.

[danyboy27]

So? Why is damaging a kids mind wrong?


beccause they are the core of our society and our future.
if we want society to progress we need a healthy generation.





There's plenty of people being killed all over the world all the time yet somehow I manage to live.

Your saying its ok to kill people if we don't need them to live. Nice.

i was talking about our society, the one we live in, not the society of people we attack. it was about what a society do to itself, not what its do to other.
and no, its not okay to attack other countries in an offensive manner, again science show that its a bad thing. The prisonnier Dilema show us that being extremely agressive (IE:nazi germany) will give you less than if you would enable cooperation with someone else. The best course of action would be to make a concession first, and if you are really attacked, you fight back.
War today really show us what happen when people dont fallow this verry simple pattern of cooperation. the iraq and afghan war cost billion, and has a result our economy collapsed.Same goes for the vietnam war, somalia, etc etc etc. You can win by using violence, but in a long shot it will give you less benefit than if you would have acted nicely toward other.







I live in the USA. Our entire economy is based on conquest and killing.
.
well, your country sure killed a lot of people during the current conflict and the vietnam war, and every time your country suffered greatly beccause of the horrible effect it had on your economy.

making weapon is profitable, selling them too, using them tend to cost more tho.




So if I could manage to live and still kill and rape children THEN it would be Ok?

wouldnt change nothing about the fact that those children represent the survival of our society, and that destroying them would be verry damaging for it.

[spiltteeth]

beccause they are the core of our society and our future.
if we want society to progress we need a healthy generation.




i was talking about our society, the one we live in, not the society of people we attack. it was about what a society do to itself, not what its do to other.
and no, its not okay to attack other countries in an offensive manner, again science show that its a bad thing. The prisonnier Dilema show us that being extremely agressive (IE:nazi germany) will give you less than if you would enable cooperation with someone else. The best course of action would be to make a concession first, and if you are really attacked, you fight back.
War today really show us what happen when people dont fallow this verry simple pattern of cooperation. the iraq and afghan war cost billion, and has a result our economy collapsed.Same goes for the vietnam war, somalia, etc etc etc. You can win by using violence, but in a long shot it will give you less benefit than if you would have acted nicely toward other.






well, your country sure killed a lot of people during the current conflict and the vietnam war, and every time your country suffered greatly beccause of the horrible effect it had on your economy.

making weapon is profitable, selling them too, using them tend to cost more tho.



wouldnt change nothing about the fact that those children represent the survival of our society, and that destroying them would be verry damaging for it.

I really disagree with yr analysis, its common knowledge WW2 saved the american economy, but yr just saying its wrong to kill other people unless it doesn't effect a person's survival.

If I rape and torture a few kids its not gonna hurt my survival at all.
Basically tr saying its immoral to rape and kill EVERYBODY because of the adverse effects on society, so it would be ok if we limited ourselves to raping and killing a small number of people.

[RedRise]

Killing is wrong unless it is absolutely necessary for survival. We kill thousands of animals because we need to eat. Our bodies need food to function and its the same for thousands of other animals. That isn't wrong. But we don't need to eat people so why are we killing the,.
The values we have today are not 'Judeo-Christian' but most of them feature in most religions around the world. I think that these values belong to humanity.

[danyboy27]

I really disagree with yr analysis, its common knowledge WW2 saved the american economy, but yr just saying its wrong to kill other people unless it doesn't effect a person's survival.


well, there is no evidence that the us would have collapsed without a war. Rosevelt made tremendous effort with the new deal to boost american economy.

then again, this event was positive at short term, so far MOST of conflict caused by the us have caused more harm than good.




If I rape and torture a few kids its not gonna hurt my survival at all.
Basically tr saying its immoral to rape and kill EVERYBODY because of the adverse effects on society, so it would be ok if we limited ourselves to raping and killing a small number of people.
no, it wouldnt be okay m it would hurt society anyway, even if its done in a small scale.

you could traumatise the next einstein! that why its wrong.
everybody is important in a society. everybody.

[Decolonize The Left]

It's not about proof, I'm just saying I believe morals are objective, so I can say raping a small child is wrong. Period. Even if everyone believed in child rape or Naziism, it would still be wrong.
I can't prove it though (I assume you mean evidential proof, which is a fairly absurd standard considering you and all people believe in many things without proof - other minds etc, my standard for truth is logical consistency)

You saying raping a small child is wrong is non-sensical since you believe in relative morals (which in itself is non-sensical since they are relative you would need to measure them against an ultimate good or evil)

I don't think you understand the terms "objective" and "relative" when referring to moral codes.


You would have to say - raping a small child is wrong for X according to X's societal standards because etc

So, in some societies raping a 10 yr old child is socially acceptable; why is it wrong then>?

so I guess I should have said you can't say raping a small child is wrong, and have relative values, AND be coherent

This is incorrect. Making a claim via the nature of moral values (i.e. whether or not they are objective/subjective) is not the same as making a moral claim. See the difference?

- August

[Invincible Summer]

If you have the time, this book (http://www.davemckay.co.uk/philosophy/nietzsche/nietzsche.php?name=1887.on.the.genealogy.of.morals .johnston.00) (Friedrich Nietzsche's On the Geneology of Morals) will answer these questions. It is a fantastic text and I highly recommend the read.

I actually have read that for a Political science course a couple of years ago... don't remember much from it but I will definitely re-read it.


In short, our 'values' and 'morals' come from conditioning. They are not inherent, they are developed over time and differ within and throughout societies. They are subjective (though a better term would be relative).

- August

I don't disagree with you that values and morals come from conditioning. I suppose another question would be that if morals are relative/subjective, then what stops people from killing and raping? In other words, how do we determine what is "wrong" then?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I actually have read that for a Political science course a couple of years ago... don't remember much from it but I will definitely re-read it.



I don't disagree with you that values and morals come from conditioning. I suppose another question would be that if morals are relative/subjective, then what stops people from killing and raping? In other words, how do we determine what is "wrong" then?

Morality doesn't "simply" come from conditioning. If you want to maintain this view, which I would not, you need to account for the following:

1. A person born with moral view X changes to moral view Y as a result of a logical inconsistency in his already held beliefs. Social condition isn't always tightly woven. Religious figures make mistakes in the consistency of their morality causing followers to see a flaw and establish their own pseudo-independent morality.

2. While Nietzsche has some interesting ideas about morality, he also isn't a "great guy." He is essentially claiming morality exists because weak people needed a way to make themselves feel better and oppress the strong. Nietzsche inverts the ideas of some social theorists in the "morality is power" school of thought. For him, the weak create the moral values rather than the strong. Strength here is in terms of "desirable" or "admirable" characteristics. There is still a certain admiration to be had for the craftiness of the weak in using morality to gain power.

There are so many interpretations of Nietzsche it's ridiculous. I don't really subscribe to his moral ideas (for the most part), though.

3. It's difficult to interpret the term moral objectivism. I am extremely interested in ethics, especially as it pertains to metaphysics. If we define moral objectivism as:

1. The person who killed your daughter should "not" have done what they did. There is a reason to say it was "bad" or "unethical" or "things should not be that way."

2. In addition, the statement that "that was unethical" is true as a result of "facts about the world, including internal states of people." Assuming everything is the same, the situation is always unethical. That person performed an unethical action.

3. The proposition "that was unethical" here refers to a truth. Whether it is a truth like "1+1=2" or "most people in Paris speak French" is another issue. The point is that we can legitimately incorporate this claim in the realm of "fact." There can be twelve million people who disagree with the statement. The truth of it remains regardless of their personal sentiments, ethical disgust, et cetera.

If this is an acceptable way of defining ethical objectivism, I am an ethical objectivist. Relativism is really "cool" these days. There are plenty of philosophical reasons to go that way. I don't agree with them.

[Decolonize The Left]

Morality doesn't "simply" come from conditioning. If you want to maintain this view, which I would not, you need to account for the following:

1. A person born with moral view X changes to moral view Y as a result of a logical inconsistency in his already held beliefs. Social condition isn't always tightly woven. Religious figures make mistakes in the consistency of their morality causing followers to see a flaw and establish their own pseudo-independent morality.

Logic and reason are also, like morality, cultivated through various forms of conditioning. It is true that humans are 'rational animals,' but the form of logic and rationality which is adopted results almost entirely from conditioning.


2. While Nietzsche has some interesting ideas about morality, he also isn't a "great guy." He is essentially claiming morality exists because weak people needed a way to make themselves feel better and oppress the strong. Nietzsche inverts the ideas of some social theorists in the "morality is power" school of thought. For him, the weak create the moral values rather than the strong. Strength here is in terms of "desirable" or "admirable" characteristics. There is still a certain admiration to be had for the craftiness of the weak in using morality to gain power.

This is entirely incorrect.

Nietzsche's argument was not that the weak 'invented' morality, he would never be so stupid as to argue this. He claimed that there were two types of morality: master and slave.

In short, for a long time there was various forms of master morality until the emergence of Christianity which is the basis of slave morality. Slave morality is master morality turned inwards through resentment. Previously, under master morality, what was 'good' was that which the master possessed: strength, courage, vitality, etc... Yet when the weaker people resented the masters enough, they turned the master morality backwards - claiming that all the master's morals were not 'bad,' but 'evil.' And the 'good' was all the characteristics of the slave: meekness, submissiveness, charity, etc...


3. It's difficult to interpret the term moral objectivism. I am extremely interested in ethics, especially as it pertains to metaphysics. If we define moral objectivism as:

1. The person who killed your daughter should "not" have done what they did. There is a reason to say it was "bad" or "unethical" or "things should not be that way."

2. In addition, the statement that "that was unethical" is true as a result of "facts about the world, including internal states of people." Assuming everything is the same, the situation is always unethical. That person performed an unethical action.

This is incoherent. If we assume that everything is the same, then of course our judgment of the action will remain the same judgment. The whole point is that things are never the same, in fact, they are constantly changing.


3. The proposition "that was unethical" here refers to a truth. Whether it is a truth like "1+1=2" or "most people in Paris speak French" is another issue. The point is that we can legitimately incorporate this claim in the realm of "fact." There can be twelve million people who disagree with the statement. The truth of it remains regardless of their personal sentiments, ethical disgust, et cetera.

Perhaps, but the relativist claims that there is no 'truth.' 1+1=2 is not a truth, but a mathematical fact. "Most people in Paris speak French" is a highly likely situation, but not a truth. It could be that at the time you uttered that, Paris was struck by a meteor, etc..


If this is an acceptable way of defining ethical objectivism, I am an ethical objectivist. Relativism is really "cool" these days. There are plenty of philosophical reasons to go that way. I don't agree with them.

I do not think that that is an acceptable way of defining objectivism for the reasons outlined above. This should develop into an interesting conversation.

- August

[Kronos]

To play Devil's advocate: where do these "values" (or I suppose one could say morals) come from? Are they inherent?Those morals which have become more or less universally practiced develop as such because actions and behaviors which would be more detrimental to group cooperation were avoided, either naturally or through compulsion (law enforcement).

The fundamentals of the civil contract were probably first worked out in small, roaming bands of people, becoming more sophisticated the larger the group got, finally to turn into an elaborate system of laws, contracts, debts, ergonomics, when agricultural science was discovered and a community was formed around it.

So the basis of the functional role of 'morality' is how it must serve to advance the interests of a single cooperative unit.

I would venture to say that murder was a crime that at some point had profound effects on the immediate structures of the social group. Today, however, a murder is an almost insignificant event. Strange how that works.

I do know morals cannot be 'inherent' because the human animal and its material relations are changing, so moral behavior is a development contingent to specific circumstances.

[Kronos]

He is essentially claiming morality exists because weak people needed a way to make themselves feel better and oppress the strong. Nietzsche inverts the ideas of some social theorists in the "morality is power" school of thought. For him, the weak create the moral values rather than the strong. Strength here is in terms of "desirable" or "admirable" characteristics. There is still a certain admiration to be had for the craftiness of the weak in using morality to gain power

To follow up on what August said, the focus of Nietzsche's critique of morality should be understood as an interpretation in contrast to systems of morality prior to the greek, philosophical dissimulation of ethics and the origins of the democracy of plebeian values (for a summary of this idea, see 'The Problem of Socrates' in Twilight of The Idols).

His argument is not that all morals are reactionary, but that the foundations of western normative moral systems just happen to be extensions of the moral principles which evolved during socioeconomic revolution, and are therefore, on that account, reactive (see 'The Christian and the Anarchist').

There is a delicate balance here between two opposing points to be made: first, that religious ideas are inventions of those from the ruling classes, and second, that the ideas often actually serve the interests of the majority against the ruling classes.

Christianity is a prime example of a religion of pity, charity, selflessness, and humiliation- all things previously considered vice by more masculine, aristocratic cultures in history. In that sense, it is the conscious movement of those without power....and it is a perfect inversion of the antagonistic, noble values.

Here, strength, pride, vanity, confidence, are bad. Why? Because those without power cannot express such characteristics of personality?

You see then that the move is in ressentiment. It is the force of a people who are suffering, and wish to put the blame on those who are not suffering.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Nietzsche's argument was not that the weak 'invented' morality, he would never be so stupid as to argue this. He claimed that there were two types of morality: master and slave.

In short, for a long time there was various forms of master morality until the emergence of Christianity which is the basis of slave morality. Slave morality is master morality turned inwards through resentment. Previously, under master morality, what was 'good' was that which the master possessed: strength, courage, vitality, etc... Yet when the weaker people resented the masters enough, they turned the master morality backwards - claiming that all the master's morals were not 'bad,' but 'evil.' And the 'good' was all the characteristics of the slave: meekness, submissiveness, charity, etc...

Fair enough. I was a bit harsh on Nietzsche and forgetting some of what he said. There are multiple interpretations of his work. I read him as certainly preferring master morality to slave morality and essentially blaming the rise of "anti-egoistic" values such as submissiveness and charity on the weak. As was mentioned, he uses the concept of ressentiment to suggest how slave morality emerges. I know some Nietzsche scholars think he had no preference between slave morality and master morality. I don't view this as the case, personally. I'm not a huge fan of discussing literary interpretations of vague philosophical texts. Either way, we can use your interpretation (or my conception) of Nietzsche as a way of considering morality.



Logic and reason are also, like morality, cultivated through various forms of conditioning. It is true that humans are 'rational animals,' but the form of logic and rationality which is adopted results almost entirely from conditioning.


Logic and reason reflect objective facts about the world. What is an example of a reasoning that "results from conditioning" and actually is logical/rational?



This is incoherent. If we assume that everything is the same, then of course our judgment of the action will remain the same judgment. The whole point is that things are never the same, in fact, they are constantly changing.

The idea is morality performs in accordance with physical and mathematical laws. There is an unknown "formula" that determines whether something is moral or not. Most ethical theories are attempts to argue what this formula or methodology (for Kant) amounts to. Answers can vary depending on circumstances. The issue is that how we judge their morality is consistent.

Also, if one accepts that something "with that always has the same variables" can have a moral choice, such as not killing a child, there seems to be an implicit notion of objectivity here. A true relativist, as far as I can see, would have to claim it is legitimate to kill a child in a situation where it simply is not "because of the variables involved and facts about the world."



Perhaps, but the relativist claims that there is no 'truth.' 1+1=2 is not a truth, but a mathematical fact. "Most people in Paris speak French" is a highly likely situation, but not a truth. It could be that at the time you uttered that, Paris was struck by a meteor, etc..


I have a much more lenient conception of truth. The possibility of a meteor doesn't factor into my calculations. I think low probability events being incorporated into conceptions of truth are too impractical. The Paris case is simply a different "kind" of truth. I'd also say 1+1=2 is an a priori truth as well as a fact. I'm not sure what the distinction between truth and fact is (in general).


I do not think that that is an acceptable way of defining objectivism for the reasons outlined above. This should develop into an interesting conversation.

Fair enough. Perhaps things like utilitarianism don't qualify as objective moral theories. Maybe morality implies that actions are "always" either good or bad, or something along those lines. Utilitarianism might then be an objective ethical theory. The issue then is that most people still want to deny this.

In order to defend this idea, I'm probably going to have to defend utilitarianism to illustrate my point. I will likely have to "bite the bullet" and claim very terrible things are justified. Keep in mind that these won't be my personal views.