That brings up the question: Is there any intuitive sense of right and wrong? Are any morals universal, or are they all subject to conventions of society? As a recent Newsweek article put it: Is morality natural?
We did discuss in class that society often decides where to draw the line on our ego/id/superego iceberg, but surely we have some say?
We did discuss in class that society often decides where to draw the line on our ego/id/superego iceberg, but surely we have some say?
Would you drive your boat faster to save the lives of six people if one person would fall off in the process and drown?
Would you suffocate a bawling baby to stop soldiers from finding you and killing you, the baby, and anyone else hiding with you?
Interesting enough, studies have shown that people reply with a strong yes to the first, and a very tentative, hesitant yes to the second. If you time to spare, you can go onto the Moral Sense Test from Harvard (http://wjh1.wjh.harvard.edu/~moral/nm1/test/test.html) and see how your morals compare to those of others.
Or perhaps morals are all personal and are embedded into our intensional maps: morally, we cannot judge anyone, not even Jackson's stone-crazy villagers.
(Eric Wei)
11 comments:
Eric, you have brought up truly thought-provoking questions. I shall attempt to explain my thoughts on them.
I believe that there are no universal morals. If morals are described as a sense of what's right versus what's wrong, then how could any morals be universal? First off, one person's view of what is meant by the ideas of "right" and "wrong" may differ from another's view. Moreover, I do not think that we humans are born with such morals. Rather, I think that we develop our morals as we live life, forming some on our own and adapting to others imposed by members of the society we live in.
Therefore, I agree with the speculation that "morals are all personal and are embedded into our intensional maps." We may choose to judge others' morals by advocating or criticizing them, but we must acknowledge the fact that there are no universal morals, and that therefore, no two people have the exact same set of morals. Likewise, no two people possess the exact same intensional world.
These are merely my thoughts. Are there others?
(Janet Lee)
I think that we as a society, including Shirley Jackson's town, rank what constitutes "morally acceptable" acts. Individuals tend to accept this view and those who do not are either marginalized or drowned out. Anyways, back to the ranking thingy. Your second example about suffocating a bawling baby seems more immoral than drowning a (presumably) grown man/woman since we think of babies as more "innocent" than their adult counterparts. We all learned that this basic nuture over nature theory in AP Euro, and I think it's relevant. So in this "system," babies>children>teens>adults etc. in terms of innocence and the resultant moral wrong that is harming them.
Additionally, what constitutes sacrifice? And is a morally acceptable sacrifice defined by a society or an individual? Since individuals make up society, their views should be reflected in the society's views. For example, Quakers view the sacrifice of war as morally wrong. If any individuals disagree with that, are they still a Quaker? (I suppose this only works with smaller societies and not the world as one society thing) On the other hand, if you are a slave being led to freedom, it is probably morally acceptable to point a gun at another person in your group if they might blow your cover (and the rest of the group's).
Then, on top of societal values and the "innocence factor," there is the pro-con issue. If you need to steal a toddler's lollipop in order to save the world, would you? If you needed to kill your opponent to advance to the next round, would you? I don't know about you guys but I think that lives are more important than lollipops. Is this an idea imposed by society? Or is this an idea that I choose to agree with, and thus, makes me a part of the life>lollipop society?
Also, I think that we react so strongly to the stoning factor due to the ouch factor. This is the nation/society/whatever that is attempting to get rid of the three part lethal injection (an anaesthetic, a paralytic, and a heart-stopper) on the grounds that some administrations of the drug failed to get the first part right. Similarly, there was a lot of hubbub about the man who chose to be hanged instead of dying via lethal injection. Then there is the theory that the guillotine was more "morally correct" since it was much more "comfortable" than beheading. Does less pain make morally incorrect practices more morally correct?
Well, I went ahead and took the the Moral Sense Test. Basically, the test presents you with 10 different scenarios and asks you to rate how morally wrong with it. Looking back, I can see some trends between the scenario and how I felt.
The first trend is similar to the 'innocence factor' that Grace mentioned. However, I think it has to do with something more than lollipops. There was this one question that talked about a woman who was told to get an interesting picture from a race. As the runners were coming up, she thought of a picture of one of the runners falling. She then proceeded to kick her camera bag in front of one of the runners and take a shot of it. Now, in this case, the innocence of the runner is involved. It seems that when one person makes the situation worse for another person for personal reasons, it is looked down upon. In turn, when something seems to be done for the good of others, such as the stoning, it is not viewed as harshly, such as the examples that Eric gave.
However, the example with the baby is interesting. I think that people were more hesitant to say yes in that case was because the baby could not help it, in other words, sympathy. It's not like a baby is able to really stop itself from crying in that sort of situation.
Actually, when I was looking at many of the scenarios, I remember always being conscious of how selfish or not the action was.
I'd like to take a look back at Janet's comment... I think there is a difference between "morals" and "right and wrong" in this case. Morals are more our perspective of whether or not something is right or wrong. I think that Eric's point is a legitimate one, though, that regardless of what our opinions on right/wrong are, there is a right and there is a wrong, regardless of whether we choose to agree with the (italics) right or the (italics) wrong. Does that make any sense?
Emily T.
We have a flaw in our society (surprise, surprise!). Do you know what that happens to be? It's that we gasp and shudder and shield our eyes when we see something that varies slightly from what we are accustomed to seeing.
I love that all of my classes seem to be connecting. Think back to Montaigne's essay. He established for his audience that the Native Americans of the New World were cannibals. So what? They lived differently. Why did this immediately imply that their way of life was "wrong"? In fact, weren't the Indians' methods more noble than those of the Europeans? Montaigne felt it more justifiable to kill in the name of the suppressed rather than to kill on foolish whim.
In the eighteenth century, a doctor named Jean Itard conducted a study on a child found in the wilderness. Although Professor Philippe Pinel asserted that the young child was mentally ill and beyond reparation, Dr. Itard felt otherwise. With ardent training, he helped the young boy reassess his long-forgotten human morals. He concluded that we are molded by our environment: our family, our education, our peers. He stated that our inner psyche (intentional/extensional map) is drawn by what we've been subjected to in our lifetimes.
Thus, I believe that our morals are instilled within us. They may be independently developed, if like the young boy, we are left to fend for ourselves at a young age. The fact of the matter is, we live in a sheltered community, and the people with which we are acquainted leave their marks on us with whatever we may do. In fact, I'm willing to say that the political parties we adhere to are the political parties which our parents follow.
(Sam Maliha)
Emily, I do understand what you are trying to say. In fact, I acknowledged in the first comment I posted that a person's VIEW of what is "right" or "wrong" may differ from another's VIEW. The emphasis here is on the idea that morals can differ based on one's perspective, as you have noted. In this respect, we are on the same page.
On the other hand, I cannot get myself to agree with the speculation that despite such variance in morality, "there is a right and there is a wrong." How can this possibly be true if what is "right" and what is "wrong" differ from person to person? Haven't we (I am directing this question towards Emily) agreed on the fact that morals are part of our personal perspectives? Or perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I would appreciate any clarification that you can offer.
I would also love to hear others' thoughts on whether or not there are any "universal" morals (as questioned by Eric). Is there such thing as a definitive set of morals or "rights & wrongs"?
On another note, I agree with Sam that "our morals are instilled within us." What does everyone else think?
(Janet Lee)
While there may be no definite right and wrong, isn't that because there is no specific agreed upon definition for the two ideas? So, if we were to define what is right or wrong, could we come up with the same set of morals?
Or would our intensional maps or even extensional world alter the set of morals and conform it to our "own" beliefs?
I think that though our morals are derived from the environment in which we are raised, there is a hope that their basis is somehow.. inherent to humans. This hope/assumption actually stems from our morality in a strange circular fashion. We want to believe that our "morals" are somewhat natural because we also seem to define "humanity" via "morals". Why is it that we consider cannibalism inhumane?
In some ways, it sort of recalls the idea that reason sets us apart from all other species. Since we reason that the widely accepted morals are Judeo-Christian in nature, then it becomes a definitive component of humanity. So are we arguing about the definition of morality? Or humanity?
Because morality and humanity are often interchanged in discussion, we have innately come to presuppose that one is dependent upon the other. We can't say that humanity is moral. Some pretty crazy things exist out there.
We consider cannibalism inhumane simply because we have neither experienced nor seen it. If we devoured humans rather than turkey on Thanksgiving, that would be a different story. Unfortunately, anything that varies from our own intentsional and extensional maps strikes us as absurd. But then again, we readily adopt new fads and styles. How is this so?
(Sam Maliha)
I think that if you want to talk about adopting "new fads and styles", you have to consider that you usually encounter an authority telling you that something is fashionable. Whether it be a magazine, television show, or a fashionable friend/stylist. Most of the time, these authority figures allow a certain trend to theoretically go from the id part of the iceburg to the ego part. That new trend is now an acceptable part of society.
I'm aware that this is not the rule in all cases seeing as some trends are obviously not accepted by society as a whole. But even though a new style is outside of our previous intensional or extensional world, it integrates itself so that is seems like it was always there.
Fashion trends are not the same as cannibalism but the same idea can apply. If a bunch of people started eating humans for Thanksgiving, after a long enough period of time it would probably become accpeted. No?
(Kelley Volosin)
It's my firm belief, in agreement with most everyone, that morals are defined by the society in which we live, as opposed to some universal code of morals. Why then do we often see similar morals in different societies? I think it comes down to the fact that morals are strict "codes" by which we live in order for society to run efficiently. "Don't kill. Don't steal." These "morals" are seen in many different societies. But the truth is, if these morals did not govern our actions, society could not exist. If killing and stealing were perfectly moral and acceptable, we would live in the state of war which Hobbes describes in "The Laviathan".
It is therefore my belief that morals are dictated by society, and although we may have slightly different morals as individuals, the collective has a general set of moral codes which it must and does abide by. From a young age the ideas of right and wrong are instilled upon us, and therefore we have emotional regrets when we do something "morally wrong." If we grew up in a world in which killing was perfectly normal, we probably would never see anything "morally" wrong with it at all.
(Kevin Trainer)
Post a Comment