What is morality, anyway?

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 5:56 pm

With my powers of pattern recognition, I foresee this thread diving into politics. Until then though, this might be interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/opini ... right.html

Right off the top there are some significant problems with the methodology (lack of any control, let alone a relevant control springs to mind), but even so, there's a result here: the young folks today, they can't talk about morals. That in turn leads me to three questions:

- What does that mean? Are they simply unable to articulate what are actually steadfast systems? Are they all amoral hooligans? Are they all immoral hooligans? Do they simply not have pat answers to what are really fairly complex questions? Have they never been confronted with moral dilemmas?

- Why is that true? I'm sure it's either "the schools these days" or "parents these days", but what about them? Lack of structured ethics curricula/dinner-table conversation? Exceedingly poor vocal communication skills?

- So what? With a better (i.e. any) control, this question would partly go away. It would be much more interesting if we had a pattern of answers over the past century or so for comparison, and it would also be more interesting if we had an age range of answers for the present (are folks aged 40-50 any better at answering?).

...gotta run. My opinions later.

Gx1080 · Post by **Gx1080** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 6:22 pm

Let's see:

Do you mean that a generation that:

*Have divorced parents more often than not:
*By large, have a standard of living worse than the previous generation.
*Is on countries where naked worship of greed and Leftist debauchery are the offical State religions.

Have problems with moral questions? No wai.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 6:33 pm

I am just going to call bullshit on this now. The limits of a youngin's morality is pretty much what they can get away with and this has been true forever. The article also doesn't seem to contrast the modern response with any previous generation's, so it just seems to come down to 'get off my lawn!'.

Gx1080 wrote:*Is on countries where naked worship of greed and Leftist debauchery are the offical State religions.

I'd really like a few examples of debauchery that is particularly leftist.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 6:34 pm

Well, put it another way: we're people who understand there is no single and omniscient authority, no absolute truth to defer to. Rather than have a list of steadfast moral rules, people have to deliberate on the subjects as they come up...if they deliberate at all. I don't see this as meaning that people of today do not have a sense of morality, but rather they don't have a concrete list of morals to fall back on. Most people today can't recite the ten commandments, much less the laws of Leviticus, and most schools do not delve into topics of morality more complex than "don't do drugs" and "don't have sex."

erik · Post by **erik** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 7:02 pm

Yah, doesn't seem like this is a terribly useful study on its own since there is no basis of comparison to judge the results by.

Do older/younger people answer differently? Did older people answer differently when they were the same age?

Where did they draw these 230 young respondents from, more specifically than "across america"? What situations did these kids grow up in? 230, even across the country likely still has a heavy amount of sampling bias.

Drawing conclusions from this study is a silly endeavor.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 7:28 pm

I'm going to have to side with AH. If you know more about morality, you know that it's all bullshit anyway. Take the list of problems with kids these days:

"to cultivate their moral intuitions, to think more broadly about moral obligations, to check behaviors that may be degrading."

So:

1) Kids these days have not Cultivated their Moral Intuitions. This is really just nonsense words that people spew about morality when they can't really complain about something specific, but I'll generously assume that he means Decided that every feeling they have must be imposed on everyone else? Why does he think that's the case? If I have the moral intuition that I don't want to eat beans, because they taste like shit, what does it mean to "cultivate" it. Or is he really saying that not wanting to eat animals because you feel bad about killing cute little sheep is somehow different from not wanting to eat animals because of any other reason?

Taking some of your personal feelings and attempting to impose them across people with different opinions isn't magically different from taking any of your other personal feelings and doing the same thing.

2) Moral obligations, by which he means, they should think that people who like eating animals should feel obligated to not eat animals. WTF! Why? Give me a good reason for that. Who are they obligated to not eat animals to? You, because you are upset? The animals right to not be eaten? Where the fuck is this coming from? Why should anyone be obligated to do something they don't care about? (Answer, threat of force, but obviously this fucker thinks that they are obligated in some way besides their own desires, or threat of force, which is wrong.)

3) Degrading behaviors, and now he slips even further, because now instead of just assuming their must be some objective morality that applies to people who don't give a shit, he extends it to being his morality. Guess what Virtue Ethicist/Divine Command Theory Jew, Utilitarians don't believe that actions are "degrading" unless they have bad results. So you check for degrading behaviors the same way you check for behaviors with bad results.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 8:05 pm

The questions are bullshit. If you actually have moral clarity, you don't have moral dilemmas. Moral dilemmas only exist if your rules conflict with your gut. If you ditch the stupid rules and have moral clarity, you don't have moral dilemmas. You have choices where there are options that are wrong, but those are not serious dilemmas. There's a guy in the elevator with me, should I rape him and steal his pocket change? Of course not. And so it is with the vast majority of moral dilemma set pieces. Should you save 5 people or 3 people? Duh! Five is more!

As to the big discovery that Americans have no problem with consumerism... so what? How is that a moral issue?

-Username17

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 8:53 pm

Just more proof that Daivd Brooks doesn't know morality, even when he writes about it happening in his very own column.

David Brooks wrote: What’s disheartening is how bad they are at thinking and talking about moral issues.

****

Smith and company found an atmosphere of extreme moral individualism — of relativism and nonjudgmentalism.

Some moralist or other wrote: Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:06 pm

I've noticed morality is....well...insane. And talking about it does feel very weird.

'Treat people how you want to be treated' is a good starting point, though.

But, seriously, I used to know a guy who claimed to be moral and righteous and all that, and would go on about how, you know, gang members, homosexuals, etc. were 'immoral' because of elaborate circular reasoning and bullshit, because he didn't want to come out and say it's because they're black and 'the bible says so'.

Then when money was tight, he'd ask if there were any scams he could pull to get some cash.

He considered himself moral, yet in practice he was extremely immoral.

Funny how that works out.

K · Post by K » Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:19 pm

My opinion of David Brooks after reading several of his opinions is that there is always someone in every organization who has to be the dumbest man in the room, even at the NYT.

Most moral decisions are emotional and not rational. Even people who claim to follow the ideas in the Bible or other religious text are simply abdicating the moral decision rather than making a rational choice.

Basically, he's a moron for expecting 200 random twenty-somethings to be able to give an Intro. to Philosophy answer to a question about morality, even if he himself was capable of doing the same at that age.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:33 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:If you actually have moral clarity, you don't have moral dilemmas. Moral dilemmas only exist if your rules conflict with your gut.

The way you said that, it's not actually true.

I get the point you're making, essentially that you can have moral behavior without a formalized framework, and also that reliance on a formalized framework is not sufficient for moral behavior. E.g. strictly adhering to the Hippocratic oath is untenable for a doctor, and you can be a good doctor even if you don't take an oath to that effect. That part is completely true.

That is separate from having moral dilemmas, and also separate from whether you can articulate underlying principles.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:47 pm

Do morals only ever fall into the purview of religion?

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:54 pm

Maj wrote:Do morals only ever fall into the purview of religion?

No.
I have never met anyone that even thinks that, and if I did they would be wrong.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 10:05 pm

First and foremost, the frontal lobe isn't fully connected to the rest of the brain until the mid 20's. That's going to have a significant impact on questions of a moral nature. "If it feels right" is the natural response when the frontal lobe isn't actively sending counter signals based on moral and social implications of actions. "The executive functions of the frontal lobes involve the ability to recognize future consequences resulting from current actions, to choose between good and bad actions (or better and best), override and suppress unacceptable social responses, and determine similarities and differences between things or events. Therefore, it is involved in higher mental functions."

"If it feels good" or one should say "impulse thinking" has been common among young adults as long as there were young adults. It is not a new sign of the times. It is as old as the hills.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 10:15 pm

Noted.

Really, I think the answer is found in The Language Glass... Just because a person doesn't have the word or words in their vocabulary doesn't mean that they are incapable of thinking about something.

I'm pretty sure that people who aren't familiar with the word "coquelicot" [and also aren't color-blind] are still perfectly capable of seeing the reddish-orange part of the color spectrum. I'm also pretty sure that young children who don't know the word "angry" are still perfectly capable of understanding that Mom is on the warpath.

Assuming that because someone is incapable of summoning up the vocabulary needed to discuss a certain topic necessarily leads to them being unable to think about the topic is completely absurd.

That being said, I've seen how helpful it is when people do learn words for their experiences so they can talk about it and/or do something about it. "Frustrated" was a great word for my son to learn because it transitioned him from giving up because he didn't know how to deal with a failure, to recognizing the emotion and stopping to take a deep breath and think carefully before trying it again.

Personally, I think one of the best tools for teaching morality is role-playing. More people should do it more often.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 10:19 pm

The problem with morality is always justification. Why is this good and that evil? Who decides that murder is a worse crime than raping a three-year-old, or that you should stone your aunt to death if she has sex with a dog?

On a strictly pragmatic level, people shouldn't care what other people do as long as it doesn't affect them - and they shouldn't care if what they do affects other people, if they're willing to accept the consequences. But humans are not innately pragmatic, we're empathic. We do feel bad when other people feel bad, if we see it, if we hear it. That's why a large part of disregarding social problems is making it so people don't perceive those problems - you roll up your car windows to keep from hearing the homeless guy begging for change, you change the television channel to avoid the adspot about poverty in Africa, you turn up your radio so you can't hear the screams of Kitty Genovese, we make smokers into statistics.

People develop a moral sense based on their upbringing and education - and there are limits to everyone, situations in which their moral sense will be challenged by extrinsic circumstances. The classic example is the group stuck in a remote location that resorts to cannibalism. Faced with a severe lack of food, cannibalism is a pragmatic situation - the only question is when, and that is a moral dilemma. Some people will resort to it quicker than others, some might let themselves starve before they get to that point - and in that situation, who is to judge which group is more moral - the group that values the sanctity of the corpse more than the sanctity of life? We recognize a moral conflict here, the desire (and moral obligation, in some cases) of continued existence against the taboo against eating our own kind - and make no mistake, the latter is an unspoken foundation of human society. The general agreement that we won't eat each other is what allows six hungry people to survive together while riding an elevator, and for parents to trust their children with the babysitter.

Gnosticism Is A Hoot · Sat Sep 17, 2011 10:28 pm

The philosophical field of ethics is a total clusterfuck, and it's very easy to get caught up in debates that mean less than nothing.

That said, I have to side with Ancient History here. David Brooks hasn't demonstrated that morality is declining; he's demonstrated that his conception of morality might be declining for some people, if you grant some pretty big assumptions.

From what I can tell, his conception of morality is full of shit, so I don't care.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 10:50 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:The questions are bullshit. If you actually have moral clarity, you don't have moral dilemmas. Moral dilemmas only exist if your rules conflict with your gut. If you ditch the stupid rules and have moral clarity, you don't have moral dilemmas. You have choices where there are options that are wrong, but those are not serious dilemmas. There's a guy in the elevator with me, should I rape him and steal his pocket change? Of course not. And so it is with the vast majority of moral dilemma set pieces. Should you save 5 people or 3 people? Duh! Five is more!

There is always the possible for a Sophie's choice situation, where both options are equal no matter what metric you use and both are horrible.

But such situations are so few and far between I don't expect most people to make them on a regular basis.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 1:12 am

There's also situations where there are a huge number of variables to be processed. If you're forced to choose between saving the lives of five people or three, then if that's all we know, it's obviously better to save more people than less. But if the three are infants and the five are extremely old people, that's harder. Those three are almost certain to live for decades after the old people have died of natural causes anyway, and the older people have had a chance to live already anyway. But there's still more of the older people than the younger.

And what if the five people are from the worst parts of LA while the three are from some flyover suburb? Statistically speaking, there's a very good probability you've got at least one or two violent thugs in the group of five, and you've probably got nothing but citizens as decent as anyone else in the three, but you don't know. Maybe every one of those three secretly beats his children. One of them could be a serial killer. Crazy doesn't discriminate based on class. It's just not very likely, though. And even if we know that every single one of the five enforce protection rackets and sell drugs to children, thus roping them into a life of crime and perpetuating the cycle, while the three are more run-of-the-mill cogs in the banal evil of society by being generally selfish and petty, does that mean the right choice is to kill the five when the three would've turned out exactly the same if they'd been born in the same circumstances? And five is still more than three, of course.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 2:05 am

the level of punishment and control over the younger generations in modern technology is impossible compared to that of the past.

you cant make them be alone and htink for themselves because all the technology. they also use that technology to do things that used to only be able to be done face-to-face (cyber bullying).

if you take all these things away and lock them in their room for a few hours with a "time-out" of sorts, then you are being a neglectful parent or abusing the child, because of over sensibilities created by the "what about the children" generation trying to pamper everyone rather than give them options to learn for themselves and make mistakes for themselves.

and EVERYONE trying to raise everyone's else child, rathe than a family unit raising a child.

"children are the future" was taken too far letting them get away with anything to let them in turn be able to do anything later. at the same time neglected to teach them proper respect for other, their beliefs, their feelings, their individual rights as humans.

having sex at ages of 13~14 is common for today's youth as they think nothing about it, because their parents MUST take care of them due to child labor laws.

longevity also means people are pampered AS children much longer, which makes them unprepared. again with sex, the body has always had the ame general puberty range, and in the past this was a measure of when people became adults, but now those natural courses are being diverted with "laws" rather than being explained better.

easier to just deny access to things, than talk about them.

teaching by law versus learning by experience, means that the laws arent respected as much, where your own experience (which youth arent given a chance to have) offer much more and is the way humans learn things.

touch a hot pot, you learn what hot is because you have experienced it and can relate to it, and the word now has meaning and context.

telling someone a pot is hot, when hot hasnt been defined by experience, you learn nothing, and the word has no meaning.

today people prevent youth from having experiences or making mistakes to learn from them wherever possible, and overprotects them.

things like everyone passes in lower school grades also dont help promote any sort of work ethics or morality as those formative years are wasted and should be setting the foundations, but instead again jsut pampering because people are living longer, without taking into account those formative years and the actual growth and learning are still within those same ages they have always been.

TL;DR the math is all fucked up and the mechanics dont work because of it.

Whatever · Post by **Whatever** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 2:53 am

shadzar wrote:having sex at ages of 13~14 is common for today's youth as they think nothing about it

today people prevent youth from having experiences or making mistakes to learn from them wherever possible, and overprotects them.

Wat.

Either we are letting 13 year olds have sex OR we are being overprotective and stopping children from making potentially huge, life-changing mistakes. But not both.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 2:57 am

shadzar wrote:having sex at ages of 13~14 is common for today's youth as they think nothing about it

If my memory of my education about history is correct, that was perfectly normal ~500 years ago too.

Count Arioch the 28th · Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:03 am

Of course. Back when dying of the Plague was a legitimate concern, breeding as early as possible would be the most effective way to pass genes along.

I think morality has a major flaw: It assumes humans aren't animals and are somehow superior. I'm not sure I believe that, too many humans I know of and are in contact with exhibit definite ape behaviors. Sure, they're using nicer toys and working on a bigger scale, but I don't see much difference between a dominant chimp beating down a lesser male to keep him from breeding with the females and shareholders in a company voting to reduce salaries so their returns on investment is bigger.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:33 am

If you haven't already, read Desmond Morris' The Naked Ape.

My expensive college education has taught me that thousands of years of human technological progress have not substantially expanded the range of human moral behavior. Everything we might talk about today - children outside of marriage, promiscuity, homosexual sex, bestiality, cannibalism, pederasty, murder, necrophilia, cheating on your partner, marrying multiple people, stealing, abandoning your spouse and kids, abortions, prostitution, incest, sodomy, pornography, flinging shit at people...this is all shit that has been going on as long as we have records of it. Gods and spirits were said to do this shit. It is literally the same old batch of crap that every generation has to deal with, and always has, and probably always fucking will. We can now surf the internet for porn instead of jerking off to cave paintings, but the basic action hasn't changed, only are attention span has.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:43 am

Whatever wrote:
shadzar wrote:having sex at ages of 13~14 is common for today's youth as they think nothing about it

today people prevent youth from having experiences or making mistakes to learn from them wherever possible, and overprotects them.
Wat.

Either we are letting 13 year olds have sex OR we are being overprotective and stopping children from making potentially huge, life-changing mistakes. But not both.

the point is they are doing it now JSUT LIKE back then as that is when puberty hits, but UNLIKE the past, they are not seeing anyone having any repercussions of it. even if you have a kid, your parents must take care of YOU and IT. also you cannot go to work to earn a living as child labor laws prevent it.

obviously once someone does this they learn, but anyone else just sees that parents MUST take care of them and they arent responsible. also knowing about child labor laws means again they know they dont have to be responsible because the law says you cant work, doesnt allow while not forcing you to, so again your parents are the responsible ones.

so when people see they dont have to take responsibility of the act, they do the act and let others have to take responsibility for it, not only the parents but ALL taxpayers as well.

so they dont learn by experience with having sex and a kid is a good thing, but they also cant relate to others their own age except for dorpping out of school and stuff, because they cannot work and not allowed to fend for themselves.

i dont remember the study but it talked about TV shows dealing wiht this like "16 and pregnant", and how many teens dont care what happens, because their parents BY LAW will have to take care of anything that happens.

the loss of morals then comes into play because people dont have to accept responsibility for their own actions.

we are overprotecting in that AFTER the child is born of a teen, they no longer have to deal with "as much" in the past, and their other teen peers dont see them having to take responsibility.

hope that makes sense.

NOT, let them have sex and a kid, but let them see what having a kid means and having sex can have consequences you are responsible for, INCLUDING making your own money and fending for yourself.

the age thing focuses on how they are sheltered from life experiences and treated as a kid longer, rather than preparing them for adulthood when they biologically reach it.

making adulthood count as being later in life by extending its numbered years, rather than maintaining that the biology doesnt jive with the category of adulthood as assigned by some government organization to state it is after the age of 18 or 21 or whatever the age of contract is in whatever state you are in, or country....adult meaning now only when you have all access to rights like owning property, and having to accept ALL responsibilities for your own actions; not where some are still extended to be responsibilities of your parents.

hope that answered to all the references to my post, but feel free to ask for more clarification if that isnt enough on that example portion of where the los of morals is coming from.