Other Philosophy: Is There A Greater Good?

[Proletariat]

I recently had an in depth conversation with one of my professors about how different demographics view non-religious higher order morality and, given that I have a basic grasp of the demographics of this site, I am curious. I am not asking for an in depth explanation of your beliefs, (though I might if it interests me) but if I were to ask you, is there such a thing as a "true moral code" or a "greater good", what would you answer? To clarify, is there a secular set of morals that inherently trumps other morals, or are ethics entirely relative depending on one's background? Please leave a reply with your answer!  

 

[The Outcast]

Sorry this wont be long


My answer is no

 

[JustNicole]

 is there such a thing as a "true moral code" or a "greater good", what would you answer? 

Yes. There is such a thing as a true moral code or greater good. 

 

[Venom Adhamm]

I don't believe there is any kind of objective morality. Certainly there are things the majority of people will agree on, but even those things can have different conditions and variations based on the person. Let's take, for example, murder. Most people would say murder is bad. However, some people will say murder is always bad, some will say murder is bad unless the person being murdered is of a different ethnicity, some will say murder is okay if it's to protect or spread an ideology, and so on. Morality, as I see it, is something invented by humans, and therefore something that can be modified by humans. Morality is an issue and concept dealing with society, and because human society changes and morphs with the times, so too does morality.


that's just my opinion though and i'm just a dumb kid

 

[Proletariat]

I don't believe there is any kind of objective morality. Certainly there are things the majority of people will agree on, but even those things can have different conditions and variations based on the person. Let's take, for example, murder. Most people would say murder is bad. However, some people will say murder is always bad, some will say murder is bad unless the person being murdered is of a different ethnicity, some will say murder is okay if it's to protect or spread an ideology, and so on. Morality, as I see it, is something invented by humans, and therefore something that can be modified by humans. Morality is an issue and concept dealing with society, and because human society changes and morphs with the times, so too does morality.


that's just my opinion though and i'm just a dumb kid

This is what is known as a relativist perspective in ethics and it makes the baby boomer generation shed a tear each time a millennial or generation Xer expresses it. The problem with relativism becomes, where is the line drawn? Should we not jail people for murder just because they think murder is okay, therefore they are following their own moral code? Or, are we not wrongly subjecting certain people to immoral things just because our society deems something is amoral that really isn't that bad, such as mandatory minimum sentencing for marijuana possession? There are many issues with the relativist perspective that I do not see solutions to.

 

[Venom Adhamm]

This is what is known as a relativist perspective in ethics and it makes the baby boomer generation shed a tear each time a millennial or generation Xer expresses it. The problem with relativism becomes, where is the line drawn? Should we not jail people for murder just because they think murder is okay, therefore they are following their own moral code? Or, are we not wrongly subjecting certain people to immoral things just because our society deems something is amoral that really isn't that bad, such as mandatory minimum sentencing for marijuana possession? There are many issues with the relativist perspective that I do not see solutions to.

Morality is created by the individual. People decide for themselves what they think is right and wrong, good and bad. However, enforcing morality is entirely different from simply deciding on it. In the situation you presented, the murderer may think what they did is okay, but the society around them doesn't agree, and therefore the morality of the society, not the morality of the murderer, is enforced. To phrase it another way, a person may say to themselves murder is okay, but if they live in organized society, they will be subject to the morality of society. Their personal morality may dictate their actions, but the morality of society will dictate the consequences.

 

[Proletariat]

Morality is created by the individual. People decide for themselves what they think is right and wrong, good and bad. However, enforcing morality is entirely different from simply deciding on it. In the situation you presented, the murderer may think what they did is okay, but the society around them doesn't agree, and therefore the morality of the society, not the morality of the murderer, is enforced. To phrase it another way, a person may say to themselves murder is okay, but if they live in organized society, they will be subject to the morality of society. Their personal morality may dictate their actions, but the morality of society will dictate the consequences.

I understand this, but what I am saying is that the morality of the majority isn't always just, which is where the idea of higher order morality comes into play. If we lived in a society where you are jailed for having an opposing or negative view of the government, should that be considered just only because the majority believe it to be so? I do not believe that different views on ethics are equal, there must be core principles that override what is the popular view of the time, otherwise the tyranny of the majority will overrule what is truly right or just.

 

[Grimmdom]

This is what is known as a relativist perspective in ethics and it makes the baby boomer generation shed a tear each time a millennial or generation Xer expresses it. The problem with relativism becomes, where is the line drawn? Should we not jail people for murder just because they think murder is okay, therefore they are following their own moral code? Or, are we not wrongly subjecting certain people to immoral things just because our society deems something is amoral that really isn't that bad, such as mandatory minimum sentencing for marijuana possession? There are many issues with the relativist perspective that I do not see solutions to.

Well, in secular terms, there's no real method or measurement to objectively define good and evil. It's one of its many issues and why such things fail to address such questions. You might as well drop the discussion because since things can't be defined, it just becomes a cycle of "What If''s? against "Oh Yeah's?" In the end, framing the discussion within a purely natural world, the only kinds of "answers" are either going to be subjective individuality, societal traditions, or from our biological evolution. So, no, there can be no greater good/moral code in those terms.


Thus, the only answer is a supernatural one. Specifically, through religions that adhere to absolutes can there be a measurement for what is the greater good or the greater evil. For example, one of the most common critical questions is why is there suffering with a God that can snap his fingers and remove it? The answer is free will. In order for us as human beings to be able to choose between good and evil, we must sacrifice our ability to make that choice and accept the consequences of our actions. We suffer because other people choose to do evil things out of the best and worst intentions. For God to remove that ability, we would become nothing more than machines that simply did what we were told. And it is through suffering that we grow as human beings, to be able to learn from mistakes that make us suffer so that we can avoid suffering in the future; or to help others avoid it. Ultimately, we must accept the unfair and unequal worst parts of life if we want to live freely as we choose. It is our burden that not only paints life in the full spectrum of colors, but allows us to know that there are such things as colors (including black and white).


With all that said, and to answer your question, yes, there is a greater good, an absolute. They are the principles and values that built Western civilization that can and is used today by even those who aren't apart of it. 


P.S. - Oh, and it does not mean people outside of religion or Western civilization can't have moral codes or believe in the greater good. Just that those who do are borrowing it from those sources.

 

[Venom Adhamm]

I understand this, but what I am saying is that the morality of the majority isn't always just, which is where the idea of higher order morality comes into play. If we lived in a society where you are jailed for having an opposing or negative view of the government, should that be considered just only because the majority believe it to be so? I do not believe that different views on ethics are equal, there must be core principles that override what is the popular view of the time, otherwise the tyranny of the majority will overrule what is truly right or just.

While it's true that the majority's morality isn't always the right one, I think humans can get things right more often than not.



The issue with discussions regarding morality and society is that "what-if" arguments don't really work. We don't live in a society where it's socially acceptable for governments to jail dissenters. There are certain countries (North Korea, Turkey, so on) where this happens, and people around those countries usually say "hey, that's wrong." Here, we come to the issue of the "what-if" argument. Do people say "that's wrong" because of some overarching, universal maxim, or because they are a product of generations upon generations of people who support free speech?


If the opinion of the majority was reversed, you run into the same issue. Would people say "that's okay" because of the objective morality or subjective morality? Because, even if you believe in objective morality, then at some point, some people had to decide "Okay, this is how the world works, this is the morality that governs the Universe." The difference between objective and subjective morality is mercuriality. In objective morality, the morality of the majority several thousand years ago is what governs society, while in subjective morality, the morality of the current majority governs society.


It is my opinion, therefore, that the past should not govern the present, and that we should not and cannot try to set things in absolute for the future. Yes, it's true the majority's morality isn't always right. This has been the case throughout history, and present-day society condemns many of the beliefs of past society. There is no way to tell for sure if what is considered just today will remain that way years from now. It's innate in human societies for change to occur, whether for better or for worse. But if you look at history, the ideals of the majority have become better as a whole in terms of human rights, because change was not stifled by declarations of universal morals and simply allowed to happen.

 

[call me rae]

Is there such a thing as a "true moral code" or a "greater good", what would you answer? To clarify, is there a secular set of morals that inherently trumps other morals, or are ethics entirely relative depending on one's background? Please leave a reply with your answer!  

Yes, people are taught the idea of moral codes/ethics/how to interact with others through a combination of things. Their parents, their religion, their society. And there are at least some basic overlaps in most religions if nothing else.


The fiddly details might be different but most people would agree with the golden rule - treat people how you want them to treat you.

 

[Proletariat]

Well, in secular terms, there's no real method or measurement to objectively define good and evil. It's one of its many issues and why such things fail to address such questions. You might as well drop the discussion because since things can't be defined, it just becomes a cycle of "What If''s? against "Oh Yeah's?" In the end, framing the discussion within a purely natural world, the only kinds of "answers" are either going to be subjective individuality, societal traditions, or from our biological evolution. So, no, there can be no greater good/moral code in those terms.


Thus, the only answer is a supernatural one. Specifically, through religions that adhere to absolutes can there be a measurement for what is the greater good or the greater evil. For example, one of the most common critical questions is why is there suffering with a God that can snap his fingers and remove it? The answer is free will. In order for us as human beings to be able to choose between good and evil, we must sacrifice our ability to make that choice and accept the consequences of our actions. We suffer because other people choose to do evil things out of the best and worst intentions. For God to remove that ability, we would become nothing more than machines that simply did what we were told. And it is through suffering that we grow as human beings, to be able to learn from mistakes that make us suffer so that we can avoid suffering in the future; or to help others avoid it. Ultimately, we must accept the unfair and unequal worst parts of life if we want to live freely as we choose. It is our burden that not only paints life in the full spectrum of colors, but allows us to know that there are such things as colors (including black and white).


With all that said, and to answer your question, yes, there is a greater good, an absolute. They are the principles and values that built Western civilization that can and is used today by even those who aren't apart of it. 


P.S. - Oh, and it does not mean people outside of religion or Western civilization can't have moral codes or believe in the greater good. Just that those who do are borrowing it from those sources.

Unfortunately in your first paragraph you have essentially ignored the philosophical field of ethics. Yes, it is certainly much harder to discover universal morality without religion, but it is not impossible. This is why people have been trying to do it since before Plato and Aristotle. You might be familiar with Kantian Ethics, which are entirely founded in the ideas that you deem impossible by human standards. The categorical imperative is or islet a method for determining how to construct an objectively just and right code of ethics. It isn't that there are not ways to do it, it is instead that discovering them is much more difficult when you do not have a single source instructing you on what they are without arriving to those ethics using reason. 


I I find fault in the idea that religious moral codes provide us with any more ethical clarity than reasoning can. For instance, in the Middle Ages it was perfectly moral and just for the crusades to take place, it was perfectly moral and just for the Catholic Church to charge people indulgence fees to get their relatives out of hell. Regardless of how clear the bible may be written, it is up to the human brain to interpret this word and act on it based on how the human brain defines what the religious code says is just or not. It comes down, again, to relativism, what was acceptable and tolerated by religion 500 years ago and what is tolerated and acceptable now are totally different things. Luckily, the church doesn't burn scientists for heresy any more, luckily, the masses can read the bible and not just the Latin speaking clergy.


And just to tack this on, because it is my favorite thing to bring up about religion from an objective ethics point of view, when there are three different people from three different religions all telling me theirs is the only one that is right and their code is the only correct code, there is an obvious conflict. Short of a letter from God, there is no way to objectively determine which religion offers the true code of ethics and which codes are erroneous. By certain religious standards, it is acceptable to stone people to death, the wife should never disobey the husband and always submit to him, and homosexuals are condemned to eternal punishment.


Just the problems with religious ethics from a philosophical point of view.


P.S. Read Saint Augustine, he was a bishop and loved justifying war and strong arming heretics into converting back into Catholicism. He also advocated obedience to the government even if the government was evil (like nazis).

 

[Proletariat]

While it's true that the majority's morality isn't always the right one, I think humans can get things right more often than not.



The issue with discussions regarding morality and society is that "what-if" arguments don't really work. We don't live in a society where it's socially acceptable for governments to jail dissenters. There are certain countries (North Korea, Turkey, so on) where this happens, and people around those countries usually say "hey, that's wrong." Here, we come to the issue of the "what-if" argument. Do people say "that's wrong" because of some overarching, universal maxim, or because they are a product of generations upon generations of people who support free speech?


If the opinion of the majority was reversed, you run into the same issue. Would people say "that's okay" because of the objective morality or subjective morality? Because, even if you believe in objective morality, then at some point, some people had to decide "Okay, this is how the world works, this is the morality that governs the Universe." The difference between objective and subjective morality is mercuriality. In objective morality, the morality of the majority several thousand years ago is what governs society, while in subjective morality, the morality of the current majority governs society.


It is my opinion, therefore, that the past should not govern the present, and that we should not and cannot try to set things in absolute for the future. Yes, it's true the majority's morality isn't always right. This has been the case throughout history, and present-day society condemns many of the beliefs of past society. There is no way to tell for sure if what is considered just today will remain that way years from now. It's innate in human societies for change to occur, whether for better or for worse. But if you look at history, the ideals of the majority have become better as a whole in terms of human rights, because change was not stifled by declarations of universal morals and simply allowed to happen.

It is interesting, because where you say that social revolution and progress comes from subjective morality, I say it comes from objective morality. What was the French Revolution, if not the ongoing fight for eternal truths? Did they not make a universal declaration of human rights? I firmly believe it is possible to decide on things that should be universally acceptable no matter the situation or time period. I don't quite follow you on the idea that somehow the past would govern the present with objective morality. Objective ethics are not about never changing the status quo, objective ethics are about arriving at an agreement on what should always be right and what should always be just. If you agree that every person on the planet should have access to free healthcare, then you believe in at least one universal moral. If you believe no person should be tried without representation and a fair trial, then you believe in one universal moral. It wasn't like the forefathers just thought on a whim the principals of our constitution would suit the needs of the country at the time, they wrote it so that the self evident truths might always apply to the country for the rest of its existence. Hence the right to bear arms, the right to free speech, etc. What was amended was incorrect, humans are not perfect, but we can strive to come to conclusions about universal truths, such as the right to participate in government and the right to freedom of religion. These should not be subject to period or the current culture, these should be eternal and universal.

 

[Archon]

In my Opinion:


Is there a "True Moral Code"? Absolutely not, morality is a different perspective of right and wrong that varies from person-to-person.


Is there a "Greater Good"? I think the above answer fits this question too. Yet I have to say, most "Greater Goods" ultimately refer to "Lesser Evils"

 

[Venom Adhamm]

It is interesting, because where you say that social revolution and progress comes from subjective morality, I say it comes from objective morality. What was the French Revolution, if not the ongoing fight for eternal truths? Did they not make a universal declaration of human rights? I firmly believe it is possible to decide on things that should be universally acceptable no matter the situation or time period. I don't quite follow you on the idea that somehow the past would govern the present with objective morality. Objective ethics are not about never changing the status quo, objective ethics are about arriving at an agreement on what should always be right and what should always be just. If you agree that every person on the planet should have access to free healthcare, then you believe in at least one universal moral. If you believe no person should be tried without representation and a fair trial, then you believe in one universal moral. It wasn't like the forefathers just thought on a whim the principals of our constitution would suit the needs of the country at the time, they wrote it so that the self evident truths might always apply to the country for the rest of its existence. Hence the right to bear arms, the right to free speech, etc. What was amended was incorrect, humans are not perfect, but we can strive to come to conclusions about universal truths, such as the right to participate in government and the right to freedom of religion. These should not be subject to period or the current culture, these should be eternal and universal.

I don't think the French Revolution is a good example for objective morality (see: Reign of Terror). I'm also not too sure that the right to bear arms is a "self evident truth," as many countries considered to be "free," and many countries considered to be "more free" than America do not provide citizens with the right to bear arms. Moving on from that, however, objective morality as it is often discussed and used relies upon the doctrines of existing religions, which are (for the most part) set in stone and written in the past. But for the sake of argument, I will use your definition of objective ethics ("about arriving at an agreement on what should always be right and what should always be just,") as it's probably a far better and more accurate definition.


In my opinion, there is nothing that should always be considered right and just, and there is definitely not going to be a point where everyone comes together and agrees on such things. That's because all actions are more than the action itself, the motivations of the action and the person behind the action must also be considered. If you were to say "murder is always wrong," then there are various conditions you're forced to contend with. Is it still wrong if it's done to end someone's suffering, or if it's done to stop the imperialistic spread of another nation? There are too many conditions that can modify every action, meaning that to create one single objective doctrine on morality would mean it has to be extremely specific and would constantly have to be amended to keep up with any major technological innovations.


Humans and society always change, and because of this, humans will never be able to create a truly objective moral. Therefore, if an objective and universal moral does exist, then who created it, or who will discover it, if not a human?

 

[Shireling]

I'd like to add that I've noticed there seems to be some confusion over "morality" and "law." In the example of the murderer, the society that puts him on trial for murder prosecutes him for breaking the law, not for transgressing a moral wrong. While most people may see it as a moral wrong, the reason that the murderer is condemned is because he has transgressed mortal law. Arguably, the law is itself constructed on objective morality. Most people find it "self-evidently true" that murdering people is immoral. (The distinction here is murder is non-justified homicide.) 


In a purely relativistic framework where laws are determined by utilitarian principles, they have no moral basis, but you can still have laws. For instance, many people such as hardcore libertarians believe that your person and property should be completely inviolable. Not because they belief in a moral framework in which it is wrong to steal or murder, but because the law serves the utilitarian function of preserving law and order. 


Additionally, objective morality need not be absolute. I say this because this seems obvious but someone has already made the mistake. Homicide may be an objective right, with the condition that commiting this act of homicide remedies an immediate threat of violent or deadly force. 


I think there is a good case to be made for objective morality, although admittedly this is a battle that the ancients have waged since the very early days of the Academy. Take, for example, the fact that throughout almost all human cultures they are remarkably consistent in their systems of morality. The fact that they are not 100% the same does not  necessarily indicate a failing of objective morality itself, but perhaps a failing of human societies. 


If you accept a relative morality, you must accept that morality does not exist. It is impossible for us to have a moral disagreement if morality is subjective, just as it is impossible to debate over what the correct flavor of ice cream is (in a meaningful way). You cannot condemn any action on the basis of the "majority moral consensus." You can merely quibble over the utility of laws. If you want a society where all social policy is a quibble over laws and their utility, that's fine. But you absolutely cannot claim moral superiority on anything. It is categorically impossible from your position. 

 

[Windsock]

https://vargskelethor.bandcamp.com/track/are-mummies-skeletons


TLR:


NO

 

[CabalAnomicPotato]

"Moral code" is like a set of standards, they can change, but they probably wont.


The "Greater good" simply refers to what the individual considers the "lesser evil", which he would base off his "moral code", or set of standards.

 

[Luthor]

In an ideal world, there would be a perfect moral code, which the laws would coincide with perfectly. However, as morality is a human construct and varies between person to person, there cannot be a form of 'greater good' that can be applicable across a single country, let alone the planet. Many current laws (in the UK, at least) are based off of traditional Christian views and morals, as that was once the majority of the country. Despite religion's dwindling presence in modern life, many views around morals are rather strict and conservative, with a firm religious backing. People condemn even safe sex if practised outside of a relationship, or too early on in one, thanks to the ancient belief that sex is sinful outside of marriage. Most who condemn homosexuality are also based off of a religion's ancient texts, outdated and rigid. Religion is omnipresent in our lives, regardless of whether it truly should be, affecting even those weak-minded atheists, or those who were brought up within a church. Yet these rigid rules and morals don't meld well with our instinctive nature. From an evolutionary standpoint, humans should procreate at a high rate with as many partners as possible to increase biodiversity and to dilute genetic faults. 


So, to conclude, 


NAH FAM, WON'T WORK 

 

[Shireling]

In an ideal world, there would be a perfect moral code, which the laws would coincide with perfectly. However, as morality is a human construct and varies between person to person, there cannot be a form of 'greater good' that can be applicable across a single country, let alone the planet. Many current laws (in the UK, at least) are based off of traditional Christian views and morals, as that was once the majority of the country. Despite religion's dwindling presence in modern life, many views around morals are rather strict and conservative, with a firm religious backing. People condemn even safe sex if practised outside of a relationship, or too early on in one, thanks to the ancient belief that sex is sinful outside of marriage. Most who condemn homosexuality are also based off of a religion's ancient texts, outdated and rigid. Religion is omnipresent in our lives, regardless of whether it truly should be, affecting even those weak-minded atheists, or those who were brought up within a church. Yet these rigid rules and morals don't meld well with our instinctive nature. From an evolutionary standpoint, humans should procreate at a high rate with as many partners as possible to increase biodiversity and to dilute genetic faults. 


So, to conclude, 


NAH FAM, WON'T WORK 

I'm sorry, but this was in no way a refutation of objective morality. 


You're treating objective morality as if it is some form of absolute component of human nature. This is a non-sensical point. 


You seem to be saying "Well, people don't have objective morality ascribed in their genes, therefore it is a construct." 


This could not be further from the truth, especially within a religious framework. The Christian religion, for example, teaches that man is a fallen creature and his nature is sin. How can a fallen creature with a sinful nature carry the within them the impulse to do what is right 100% of the time? 


So, furthermore, your point just seems to be that you don't like religion. As it has already been stated, people have proposed objective moral systems outside of religion. Although, I would argue, the objective morality argument is probably the strongest argument for the existence of God as it has never fully been refuted. 

 

[Luthor]

I'm sorry, but this was in no way a refutation of objective morality. 

 ...is there a secular set of morals that inherently trumps other morals...

My point was that ethics that could stand entirely apart from religion is highly unlikely, maybe even impossible in today's society thanks to the influence of faith. Even turning to biology cannot provide a secure set of morals that would allow society to run without descent into our animalistic nature. [SIZE= 10px](I just finished an essay on ethics in Christianity so my brain won't work good)[/SIZE]

 

[Shireling]

My point was that ethics that could stand entirely apart from religion is highly unlikely, maybe even impossible in today's society thanks to the influence of faith. Even turning to biology cannot provide a secure set of morals that would allow society to run without descent into our animalistic nature.

Like I said, you can base your laws on utilitarianism. If you claim morality doesn't exist, utilitarianism is the only system I can think of for organizing your society. 

 

[Proletariat]

So far this is proceeding as expected. I do not know why younger people are generally relativist. I believe it has something to do with the prevailing need to tolerate those that are different. Fortunately this is not a totally negative thing, but the fact that it sacrifices belief in objective morality is troubling. Perhaps it is also that our education systems teach less classical literature and more math, that could sure breed a cynical generation.  

 

[Windsock]

So far this is proceeding as expected. I do not know why younger people are generally relativist. I believe it has something to do with the prevailing need to tolerate those that are different. Fortunately this is not a totally negative thing, but the fact that it sacrifices belief in objective morality is troubling. Perhaps it is also that our education systems teach less classical literature and more math, that could sure breed a cynical generation.  

That's bullshit.


Edit: "Oh, we're cynical because we do science more then literature"? Uhh, I dunno, a society that bases itself off of the teachings of the hollywood version of nietzche might suck ass wouldn't it? I think we're not doing enough actually practically useful education until the average person can easily, accurately, and fully explain how a nuclear reactor (or DNA or something) works to a six year old without using analogies.


Until we've matured as an interplanetary or interstellar civilization, where each member has achieved their own objective and subjective perfection in both mind, body, and soul, either through the use of genetic engineering, mechanical replacement, or some other means, and we live in total peace and harmony while wasting nothing given to us by our solar system and other celestial bodies, we are not smart enough concerning our average individual knowledge on how our universe and our arbitrary mechanisms which we use to describe the universe works.

 

[Shireling]

That's bullshit.


Edit: "Oh, we're cynical because we do science more then literature"? Uhh, I dunno, a society that bases itself off of the teachings of the hollywood version of nietzche might suck ass wouldn't it? I think we're not doing enough actually practically useful education until the average person can easily, accurately, and fully explain how a nuclear reactor (or DNA or something) works to a six year old without using analogies.


Until we've matured as an interplanetary or interstellar civilization, where each member has achieved their own objective and subjective perfection in both mind, body, and soul, either through the use of genetic engineering, mechanical replacement, or some other means, and we live in total peace and harmony while wasting nothing given to us by our solar system and other celestial bodies, we are not smart enough concerning our average individual knowledge on how our universe and our arbitrary mechanisms which we use to describe the universe works.

Being able to explain nuclear physics to a six year old is an odd metric of education. 

 

[Windsock]

Being able to explain nuclear physics to a six year old is an odd metric of education. 

Absolutely, I just pulled shit out of my ass, I mainly meant 'really fucking smart' really. I'm not sure how you'd accurately measure intelligence, but being able to spread what you do know efficiently to most anyone is a good indicator to me.