Is morality real and should it be tolerated, and if it ought to be tolerated should we standardize it?

Question

I am a philosopher, a nihilist of sorts, and I have studied, at great length mind you, the idea and subjectivity of morality. I have seen, personally, nothing more useless and futile than morality. I personally do not hold any morals. Yes, I can see the logic behind, "it is bad to kill people" but we still send the good-ol'-boys over to Iraq to kill anyways so you can see the major contradictions here. I have seen, in my observations, that every human being, when faced with enough difficulties and enough pressure, will contradict their own morality. Thus rendering it not only a farce, but a dangerous one at that. What is the use of you people and your morals if you aren't really going to stick to them? Every moral, at its core, is only an opinion of right and wrong. Opinions are not reality. In reality something is only "wrong" if you say it is, and even then it still isn't, you're just delusional. So please, lend me your thoughts on the matter, and be as mean as you like

Answer 1

No, it is surreal. No, why would you even worry about it. No, it would complicate things even more!0!

Answer 2

I find it hard to disentangle your claim to have "studied, at great length mind you, the idea and subjectivity of morality" from your claim that "something is only "wrong" if you say it is, and even then it still isn't, you're just delusional."

I am confused on two counts. First, you claim that all morality is a matter of opinion. I take it that you mean to exempt this claim: "that all morality is a matter of opinion." That is to say, you are claiming in essence that *your* assertions about morality are not mere opinions, but everyone else's are; your claims have truth value in a way that other's assertions do not. Yet, you do not offer a reason as to why you are not just expressing just one more opinion in the myriad of opinions that you claim are out there.

The second point at which I am confused is what you take to be morality. As I understand morality, and I am admittedly no expert, it is "practical reason," "human actions," or the "reasons for our actions." I take it that you do engage in "actions" --you make decisions on how to treat people, their belongings, the lives and jobs and so forth. Since morality is about our actions and you claim to have no morality and yet you have actions (I could be wrong about this last assumption), well, you can see how that contradiction might confuse me.

FWIW, the notion that morality is relative must be argued very carefully in order to avoid becoming self contradictory by making truth claims the position is set to deny exist at all. Indeed, I do not think that such an argument can be sustained, though I am more than willing to listen.

HTH

Charles

Answer 3

Morality is as real as anger and Justice. All are concepts of a human (or any intelligent) mind. Before humans there was no morality. None. now that there are humans, we have all these different ideas of morality and justice and everything else. We have emotions that some animals had, but we give them names.

So morality exists, but it has no intrinsic value or meaning other than to allow this little life form on this one planet to deal with each other in a "coherent" fashion. Someday we will all be dead and all concepts of human morality will be dust. Poof.

it can't be standardized b/c humans are just too different. Just like a ship needs a captain to choose between various routes that each have benefits, morality allows us to individually make sense of human interaction. We do it differently, but it works out in the end. And if it doesn't, oh well.

Answer 4

That is where you are wrong. Allow me to use a parallel.

Arguably nothing in science is real in any way. The Earth doesn't calculate gravitational acceleration when it sticks you to the ground. Electons don't figure out where they go in circuits. These things all happen naturally. At best, science is a DESCRIPTION of this reality.

Having a good description, though, we can make use of reality to the fullest. Computer chips make use of quantum mechanics. Medicines enhance our natural physiological capabilities. And so on and so forth. It is almost indisputable that science - even if it isn't reality itself - is a very good map that helps us get things done.

Morality and ethics are no different from science in this respect. They are just vastly more complicated than the comparatively simple physical laws of the universe because humans and their thought processes are also so vastly complicated and varied. So don't go looking for a simple solution for a complicated problem - complicated issues usually required complicated solutions. 'Don't kill people' is too overly simplistic to be of greater value than a very general rule with many, many exceptions.

Nor should you doubt for a second the eventual power of ethics once we actually figure it out to the same degree that we've figured out science. You yourself note how much time and energy we as a species waste in fighting each other, working at contrary purposes, and just making bigger problems for ourselves down the road. These aren't MANDATORY problems... we just lack the proper moral code to avoid them.

And once society lacked the proper scientific code to build satellites; now we launch them all the time. If we were able to do one, I see no reason why we cannot eventually figure out the other.

You just need to keep a realistic perspective on the challenge involved. It's worth it, though: the rewards are potentially so great as to be almost unimaginable.

Answer 5

You say you understand the logic of "it is bad to kill people," so without even a need to reason or contemplate it, you KNOW that it is bad to kill people. The fact that bad things happen in the world should not confuse you, especially being a nihilist that holds a universal law is not in place and mankind is free to make his or her own actions, which invariably could lead to immoral decisions.

So is morality real? Yes, it is more real than the objects surrounding you, because it is a subjective knowledge that you hold within you.
Should it be standardized?
Impossible, because it is subjective, so it can never be held to the same laws as objectivity.

And I mean that.

Answer 6

we contradict ourselves because we're divided into "morality groups" let's say. Fighting other humans who we believe their ethics are botched, & trying to force them to become like us is just like the endless battle between religion & conversion.

to answer your question: morality is real. It is accepted. But radical views are only permissible by the open minded, those who aren't judgmental, or are empathic. A wise sage like you would understand the divergent perspectives I presume.

and morality will never be standardized because every human has their own beliefs, & as soon as a party tries to unite humans under an umbrella of “global regulated conduct regarding a moral code” there will be riots, rivals, & reprisals. I mean who is this “party” to decide what we are to believe in?

to each his own belief I say.

Answer 7

I prefer to be a moral relativist and a Machiavellian. I put my family first and will do or say anything to better our chances to be happy, loving and free. I make choices that more often than not are beneficial to myself, my family and my community, but when it gets down to the nitty-gritty I will not hesitate to take advantage of those who adhere to morals in such a way that they become vulnerable to my predation.

Answer 8

The true horror of our situation is that there is a blurring of lines between ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ and consequently there is no clarity regarding what is right?, What is wrong? And the difference between the two if any. The existence of various moral positions available at the moral supermarket only compounds our confusion. The vagueness that exists about moral values today has been best expressed in this anonymous poem:

It all depends on where you are;
It all depends on who you are;
It all depends on how you feel;
It all depends on what you feel;
It all depends on how you're raised;
It all depends on what is praised;
What's right today is wrong tomorrow;
Joy in Gujarat is the rest of India’s sorrow;
It all depends on points of view;
North, South, or may be the Northeast too;
In Bangalore do as the Bangaloreans do;
In Mumbai do as the Mumbaikers do
But, when you get to Chennai be sure to slip into a conservative shoe
May be if tastes just happen to agree,
Then you have morality;
But where there are conflicting trends,
It all depends, it all depends.

This little poem, to which I have added an Indian flavor, introduces us to different positions of what is right or wrong. All of them hinge on moral relativism.

"For some, what is morally right is determined by the culture to which one belongs. If culture permits it then, it is right. If it doesn't, then it is wrong. ( that's the Cultural argument).

"For some, What is morally right and wrong depends on the situation ( this is the situational argument).

"For some, what brings pleasure is morally right, and what brings pain is morally wrong (that's the Hedonist argument)

"Some view moral rightness in terms of what brings the greatest good in the long run. The greatest amount of good is understood as either 'greatest amount of pleasure ( Jeremy Bentham) or the greatest kind of pleasure for the greatest number (John Stuart Mill).

"For some, Morality is found in moderation. The right course of action is moderation between two extremes (that's the moderation argument).

"For some, the morally right thing to do is what is right for the individual ( the argument of individualism).

"Since, what is right for one may be wrong for another and vice versa we need to accept various positions ( The Tolerance argument)

We may not be aware of all the philosophical and religious tags that academia attaches to these moral positions but they are not entirely unknown to us.

As you can see, it is extremely difficult to hold these moral relativistic positions coherently. In the end, it looks like moral relativism is based on our ‘psychological preference’ rather than objective logical arguments.

C. S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, gives a very helpful illustration. Imagine we are a fleet of ships sailing in formation to a particular destination. Now if the fleet is going to arrive safely without mishap, three things are necessary.

·First, the individual ships must be seaworthy. Their insides must be in good working order so they can keep afloat, steer well and have the motive power to make the journey.
·Second, they must be aware of the other boats so they don't bump into one another and so cause harm to themselves and others.
·Third, they must have some idea about where they are heading - why they are afloat in the first place. It will be of no used if, after a good journey, they end up in Calcutta when they were supposed to get to New York.

Sociologist Emil Durkheim, almost a hundred years ago predicted a rise in suicide, violence and mental illness when a community loses its values base and therefore meaning. He called this condition 'anomie' and considered it the worst condition of society. And such a threat is very real today. The remedy lies in our return to the moral values outlined by our maker.

Times are changing, with morals in decay,
Human rights have made the wrongs okay.
Something's missing, and if you're asking me,
I think that something is the G- O- D.
To label wrong or right by the people's sight,
Is like going to a loser to ask advice.
And by basing your plans on another man's way of living life
I is creating a brand of ethics sure to be missing the punch,
No count morals that are out to lunch.
They're sliding away 'cause everything is okay,
It was taboo back then but today we say, "What the hey."
We gotta back to the principles found in the Word,
A little G-O-D could be society's cure.

Answer 9

I believe the humanist doth protest too much.

Whether you want to admit it, you have a moral compass. Some call it a code of ethics. No matter what you call it, it provides order to a society.

So get off of your humanist high horse and join the rest of us deluded souls.

Answer 10

One very beneficial reason for adhering to ones own set of morals is Karma.

If you violate your moral beliefs, you will likewise be violated. This occurs regardless of your opinion of Karma.