It began with an exploration of a discussion someone had regarding the statement that a couple living together, unmarried was “immoral.” This raised the issue about various concepts of morality:
The anthropologic: the moral is that which keeps society stable and promotes perpetuation of the species. Objection: authoritarian societies are quite stable, for a while, yet they may promote slavery and oppression.
The religious: Most religions use a variation of the Golden Rule.
Objection: Is what I would want for myself a basis for doing to others, who may have different values, beliefs, and frames of reference?
Kant: Focus on the impartial universalizability of a proposed course of action. He felt moral behavior involved treating other human beings as deserving respect (as “subjects”). We want others to respect us as conscious beings who deserve to be treated as such (as “subjects”) and not merely to be used by others as though we were mere pawns (“objects”) that did not deserve to be treated as fully human.
Objections: Kant’s attempt to derive morality from an exercise in reason actually had two formulations: (1) Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law and (2) Act as though the maxim of your action were by your will to be come a universal law of nature. The second version contradictions the first because, by nature, we act out of self-interest and this self-interest conflicts at times with universalizability, e.g. when extreme situations make us want to end our life.
Law: What is moral is compliance with the law
Objection: laws can be immoral, such as segregation or apartheid.
Moral relativism: Inability to pass judgment about other cultures or others’ actions as appropriate/inappropriate or as inferior/superior since no objective or universal moral standard exists.
Objection: The position would hold that slavery, discrimination and subjugation of women and minorities, ethnic cleansing, genital mutilation, and rape are not subjects of moral condemnation universally, at all times, and for all people.
We then considered the difference between morality and ethics. The former can describe the mores or customs of a particular culture at a particular time and describe norms and expectations of behavior. Ethics is a branch of philosophy which studies that which we ought to do and moral principles that are universal. At times the terms are used interchangeably, however.
In trying to discern universal moral principles someone suggested simply being decent to our fellow humans and to animals. While this seemed to have resonance with many as a good ideal, there could be considerable discussion about whether particular examples of decency would achieve universal agreement. Another person felt that “all men are created equal” was such a major conceptual breakthrough historically that it seemed to be the basis for our contemporary notion of human rights. Some agreed that it had the force of universality. Others felt that it was open to too much interpretation, since its true meaning was not obvious, that is, everyone was not created equal in terms of their genetics, their material situation of birth, and even their potential contribution to society. If the formulation was reworded to say that all humans deserve equal respect and enfranchisement in society or that all have the right to life, liberty and property, then there might be a clearer basis for agreement, although many disagree with the idea of private property as a necessary human right (socialists, communists, and even Plato).
Some believed we could not discuss our ideas of morality apart from recognizing that we were all brought up in a culture and educational environment which was impregnated with religious influences and myths or stories of right and wrong. Nonetheless, it appears that, over time, we can transcend the baggage of our culture and the moral assumptions of our teachers and family, to arrive at some idea of what it is to live a life worthy of calling human or humane. While slavery was perfectly acceptable to the majority of humans until less than 250 years ago, it is almost eradicated in the world at present. This kind of progress in our understanding derives in part from what we believe we ought to do to maximize harmony in a society. It also derives from a desire to create a society that we are proud to live in. This occurs after we achieve a certain degree of moral insight and enlightenment following debate and struggle over hundreds and sometimes thousands of years. It is through this evolutionary (or sometimes revolutionary) struggle that a civilization can make moral progress and see the underlying universal moral laws, just as scientists continually struggle to refine their underlying universal laws of the physical universe.
========================
Hope to see you all this Monday.
Rich Bernstein