LibriumArcana.Games

What is the nature of morality? Is there a basic universal code? What is the purpose of morality? Does it have a purpose?

Discuss.

*cracks knuckles*

Prepare for bio-psycho-socio-philosobabble

OK. First, I am speaking from a sociobiolical/social psychology standpoint.

Morality, or morals, have a purpose. namely, to permit us to survive in a hostile environment. We are social animals which tend to form large groups who are bound together by social bonds. Eventually though we need to actually develop rules. These rules allow our social groups to behave cohesively. Analagous to the social structures of wolves dolphins and other social animals. They each know what they can and cannot do in different situations. It is the same with humans. Within social groups, we know what is and is not acceptable, within certain limits. What is acceptable is within normal limits for behavior known as the prescrfiptive normative range. Things which are outside of behavioral norms is in the proscriptive normative range.

Imagine it like a circle, with everything inside being OK, and everything outside being bad.

When you are near the edge of the circle, things are considered wierd, such as wearing mismatched socks at a formal dinner. If people notice they will genrally chaulk it up to laziness and not give it a second thought. However if you get just outside the circle, things start getting fun. Such as wearing a baseball cap. people will take you aside, or point out the cap to you. This is called deviance countering.

Now, if you get way outside the circle, things start becoming morally, as opposed to socially unacceptable, such as knifing someone to death during that formal dinner.

So what does all of this mean? It means that there are certain things which are acceptable to groups of people. And certain things which are not. The things which are unacceptable but arent considered evil, are minor deviances from norms. They disrupt group functioning, but not baddly. Things which are immoral, are things which harm the group as a whole, generally by harming one or more of its members in some manner, or causing the potential that one of them will be harmed, or that dtrastically reduce the ability of the group to function.

These are things like murder theft rape, etc etc etc

So what about ethical systems and the like? They are largly irrelevant. Based upon socialization, people will usually internalize the norms, and thus the morals of the group/groups to which they belong, independantly of ethical systems. Of course, people dont like to think that they are slaves to their environments in this manner, so they rationalize it with post-hoc philosophical justifications, like utilitarianism. These also serve as guidelines when the individual is faced with a circumstance which they are not familiar/trained for, by giving them a set of principles which their social group favors.

Myself, I have internalized my social group's norms and rationalize them with a Rights based-utilitarian hybrid ethical system.

Come on there have to be more peope with opinions than this

Comrade Tortoise wrote:Come on there have to be more peope with opinions than this

I would comment, but Rome: Total War is calling my name rather loudly.

My Winter Assault obssession is on display in M&A.

I got 15 minutes, I'll burn a few. For the purposes of this thread I'll set aside religious aspects and look at morality from a mechanical viewpoint. Morality exist has a sot of imperfect protection and guideline. Humans are socal animals, we live in groups. When you live in a group you need rules to prevent conflict that could destory the group. You also need to ensure a minium of well being for members within the group.

For example, if I were to rip off a member of the group's face and then run around with it has a hat, it would lead to conflict within the group and the person who is minus a face wouldn't be well off at all would he?

So we have these rules of how we ought to treat and deal with each other. It's interesting to note that in many cases following these rules can be of benifit to you. It is safer for you to solve disagreements with words instead of sharp pieces of metal. It is safer to live in a world where people generally agree that eating each other is wrong. It is safer to live in a world where people agree that kidnapping childern is wrong. Etc, etc, etc.

What about law you ask? Well in a competely moral world law wouldn't exist. However for various reasons, some good, some bad, people can, have and will break moral guidelines and rules. When this happens law steps in punish the wrongdoer. It's importent to note this, from the first set of written laws in the Middle East to modern day, Law is deeply concerned with punishing wrongdoers, more than stopping wrong doing from taking place. Law is society giving you a concrete reason to follow the agreed upon morale guidelines. If you murder your neighbor to steal his X-Box 360 the law will ensure you are punished, in today's world this carried out via prison time.

Law however exist seperatly from morality and vice versa. It is very possible for a immoral law to exist and there are times when to act morally you must break a law. It is importent to note not all morals carry the sanction of law, has cheating in a friendly card game at a friends house won't result in jail time. Niether do all laws carry the sanction of morality, for example Jay Walking is hardly considered a deeply immoral act, just unsafe.

Questions?

Usually when I post stuff like this people scream...

frigidmagi wrote:Usually when I post stuff like this people scream...

You know my feelings. Rules are fine, so long as they agree with me.

See, I was expecting people t jump me because I said their precious ethical systems were post-hoc justifications

Comrade Tortoise wrote:See, I was expecting people t jump me because I said their precious ethical systems were post-hoc justifications

I didn't see a thing wrong with your interpretation and description, as it basically reflects mine to a tee.