Towards a Common Ethic

[Ender]

I am, for example, outraged by what is referred to as honour killing, because it offends almost every value I hold. But it is I - and the many others who abhor the practice - who condemn it, not the universe. It is only by changing the values of those who practice it that we will ever get them to believe it is fundamentally wrong

For me, this sums up the problem with your position. You reject the existence of objective moral values while at the same time claiming that honor killings are fundamentally wrong. Is “fundamentally wrong” somehow different than “objectively wrong”?

If morality is nothing more than custom - as you have argued - then you have no basis for condemning the practices in one culture that are counter to the practices of your culture. In fact, if honor killings are the norm for my culture, then I would be acting immorally if I refused to commit one - as you yourself point out: “it is possible to judge the moral character of their actions against the values they profess to uphold.”

I think everyone believes that some things are “fundamentally” wrong. These, at least, would be on the list of objective wrongs. It is not so much that we disagree on this as it is that we disagree as to what should be on the list. If you disagree with this then there is absolutely no basis for you to hold that honor killings are immoral.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I saw no demonstration. You only said that many people have questions about morality.

Here is what you said earlier:

People consider something moral if they agree with it, and consider something immoral if they disagree.

Given the numerous examples on this forum of people asking whether a specific action is immoral it is quite clear that your statement is incorrect. It would be ludicrous for someone who believes as you claim to ask such a question, yet many people do ask such questions so it cannot be said of them that morality is whatever they agree with.

Ah, but you do not differentiate between short term and long term goals. If one only sees short term personal gratification then it is sensible to walk through everyone else, and try to grab the biggest slice in the pie, which is a pretty dumb behavior.

This is incorrect as well. Lying, cheating, and stealing can pay off quite handsomely so long as one isn’t caught. Aside from the fear of not getting away with something, your ethic provides no rationale for not doing whatever one believes is in his own best interest. What you’re actually saying here is not that someone who walks over others is behaving immorally, but that he is acting foolishly.

Simple. I was not brought up that way. And I look at the long term goals, too.

Well, I didn’t say you had no reason at all; what I’m saying is that your outlook on morality provides you with no rational basis to defend your position.

Ender

 

[Sair]

For me, this sums up the problem with your position. You reject the existence of objective moral values while at the same time claiming that honor killings are fundamentally wrong. Is “fundamentally wrong” somehow different than “objectively wrong”?

If morality is nothing more than custom - as you have argued - then you have no basis for condemning the practices in one culture that are counter to the practices of your culture. In fact, if honor killings are the norm for my culture, then I would be acting immorally if I refused to commit one - as you yourself point out: “it is possible to judge the moral character of their actions against the values they profess to uphold.”

I think everyone believes that some things are “fundamentally” wrong. These, at least, would be on the list of objective wrongs. It is not so much that we disagree on this as it is that we disagree as to what should be on the list. If you disagree with this then there is absolutely no basis for you to hold that honor killings are immoral.

Ender

There are a few problems of perspective here.

Firstly, honour killings are absolutely immoral, according to my values. They are also fundamentally wrong according to any value system which accords the individual primary moral worth.

However, in a value system where the community holds the primary moral worth, any member who is seen to be compromising the collective morals of the community becomes a liability and must be dealt with - whether that is through killing, or some other means.

If you’re looking for things that are universally considered to be wrong, you’re on pretty safe ground with murder…except that murder is defined differently, depending on circumstances. According to Western, individually-based values, honour killing is murder, because salvaging the community’s or the family’s honour is not deemed sufficient reason to kill someone.

So, in fact, it is quite possible for me to condemn ‘honour’ killings as wrong, while at the same time acknowledging that they are carried out by people whose value systems are very different from mine, and from most Westerners’ values as well.

Most of us would like to think that the values we hold are somehow universal, and that what we think of as right and wrong has some kind of sanction beyond our own feelings. Legal systems provide some kind of objective framework for social morality, but they are only part of the story, and they change with the flavour of the times. The best any of us can do is stick to what we believe is right, and be honest with ourselves.

 

[grannymh]

There are a few problems of perspective here.

Firstly, honour killings are absolutely immoral, according to my values. They are also fundamentally wrong according to any value system which accords the individual primary moral worth.

However, in a value system where the community holds the primary moral worth, any member who is seen to be compromising the collective morals of the community becomes a liability and must be dealt with - whether that is through killing, or some other means.

If you’re looking for things that are universally considered to be wrong, you’re on pretty safe ground with murder…except that murder is defined differently, depending on circumstances. According to Western, individually-based values, honour killing is murder, because salvaging the community’s or the family’s honour is not deemed sufficient reason to kill someone.

So, in fact, it is quite possible for me to condemn ‘honour’ killings as wrong, while at the same time acknowledging that they are carried out by people whose value systems are very different from mine, and from most Westerners’ values as well.

Most of us would like to think that the values we hold are somehow universal, and that what we think of as right and wrong has some kind of sanction beyond our own feelings. Legal systems provide some kind of objective framework for social morality, but they are only part of the story, and they change with the flavour of the times. The best any of us can do is stick to what we believe is right, and be honest with ourselves.

Sair, help me out here. I know what I want to say but my mords keep getting wixed up.

Your post gives me some ideas . What about the difference between the statement of a primary moral worth (I like the word “primary”) and all its applications? A variety of applications can follow from one statement. I absolutely dislike the “mutually exclusive or”. As my Irish Mother would say: “There is more than one way to skin a cat.”

Could we fit in the problems of perspective without eliminating the primary?

Blessings and good thoughts,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.

 

[Sair]

Sair, help me out here. I know what I want to say but my mords keep getting wixed up.

Your post gives me some ideas . What about the difference between the statement of a primary moral worth (I like the word “primary”) and all its applications? A variety of applications can follow from one statement. I absolutely dislike the “mutually exclusive or”. As my Irish Mother would say: “There is more than one way to skin a cat.”

Could we fit in the problems of perspective without eliminating the primary?

I must admit I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking, but I’ll do my best to respond!

I think it is possible to draw many moral conclusions based on the primacy of the individual. First of all, it follows from this that every individual must be treated as worthy of consideration, and their needs must be accounted for. There are, however, circumstances in which the needs of one individual may conflict with those of others, and all must be weighed in the balance. For example, if a person has committed assault, perhaps repeatedly, his or her need for freedom of action is trumped by the needs of other individuals to have freedom from harm. Hence imprisonment of the former is appropriate and morally justifiable.

Furthermore, I think one can build upon the primacy of the individual to develop a community-based morality, where each individual’s needs are met through harmonious social relations. To put it another way, I don’t think that considering individuals as primary moral units in any way precludes ascribing importance to the community as a whole.

Hope that was helpful…

 

[grannymh]

I must admit I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking, but I’ll do my best to respond!

I’m not sure what I’m asking so at least we are on a level playing field.

I think it is possible to draw many moral conclusions based on the primacy of the individual. First of all, it follows from this that every individual must be treated as worthy of consideration, and their needs must be accounted for.

For me, the primacy of the individual is important – so hold on to that thought. But I also want to know why. Can the primacy of the individual be debated? Primacy in what?

There are, however, circumstances in which the needs of one individual may conflict with those of others, and all must be weighed in the balance. For example, if a person has committed assault, perhaps repeatedly, his or her need for freedom of action is trumped by the needs of other individuals to have freedom from harm. Hence imprisonment of the former is appropriate and morally justifiable.

Absolutely, the above is morally justifiable. But I see it as an application of a deeper or primary principle.
Would you posit that every individual has a need for freedom of action? Is that based on the same deeper or primary principle as to have freedom from harm?

Furthermore, I think one can build upon the primacy of the individual to develop a community-based morality, where each individual’s needs are met through harmonious social relations.

What would fuel the harmony? Is it based on the same deeper or primary principle as might be for freedom of harm and freedom of action?

To put it another way, I don’t think that considering individuals as primary moral units in any way precludes ascribing importance to the community as a whole.

Could your thought above be because the community is made up of individuals who are important based on the same primary principle that supports the above?

Hope that was helpful…

It was helpful that I could form better questions from my perspective of a common ethic. They might not be better questions from your perspective.

 

[Sair]

For me, the primacy of the individual is important – so hold on to that thought. But I also want to know why. Can the primacy of the individual be debated? Primacy in what?

I think it makes a lot of rational sense to accord the individual primary moral worth, simply because an individual is the smallest entity that can practically be accorded moral worth as a centre of experience, or that can be said to be a moral agent. We are moral atoms, if you like

Absolutely, the above is morally justifiable. But I see it as an application of a deeper or primary principle.
Would you posit that every individual has a need for freedom of action? Is that based on the same deeper or primary principle as to have freedom from harm?

Certainly freedom of action is important if we are to be allowed moral agency. We cannot have complete freedom to act morally if we are fearful of some danger, or if we are coerced or forced to act - in short, harm to our physical or psychological selves curtails our ability to act freely according to our own ethics. So in this sense, individual-as-primary-moral-unit does have a deeper significance as a basis upon which an all-encompassing morality may be constructed.

What would fuel the harmony? Is it based on the same deeper or primary principle as might be for freedom of harm and freedom of action?
Could your thought above be because the community is made up of individuals who are important based on the same primary principle that supports the above?

This has may interesting implications. It is true that when a community is formed, there are automatic limits to the freedom of any individual to act, based on the need for every other individual to have freedom to act. Here’s where it gets complicated, and we have to start talking in terms of heirarchies of needs and basic rights of individuals. For example, in capitalist societies, the right to accumulate wealth is accorded great importance - however, does one person’s accumulation of wealth interfere with another person’s right to have certain basic needs met - like eating, medical treatment, shelter, etc? However, on the other side of the coin, living in community means that we may have greater freedom to act as moral agents also, because many of our basic needs - such as those for food, shelter, medical treatment - are more easily met by the community. When primacy is accorded to individuals, society becomes a matter of endless negotiation, to ensure that each individual has the maximum freedom to act, while at the same time minimising the interference with every other individual’s freedom to act.

It was helpful that I could form better questions from my perspective of a common ethic. They might not be better questions from your perspective.

Certainly in talking of the primacy of the individual, we are getting closer to a universally applicable morality, at least. However, it has problems of its own, and these are not always problems that can be rationally solved. For example, what about persons who cannot be moral agents, in the sense that they cannot make choices, cannot reason, cannot act independently - such as small babies, people in vegetative states, other animals? Are they still to be valued in themselves as centres of experience? Or can moral agents treat them however we like? Or are they to be valued because they are important to certain moral agents (parents of infants, owners of pets, etc.)? At first it feels simple and logical to accord primary moral worth to individuals, but there is still ample room for negotiation and subjectivity in working out how this is to be accomplished.

 

[grannymh]

I think it makes a lot of rational

sense to accord the individual primary moral worth, simply because an individual is the smallest entity that can practically be accorded moral worth as a centre of experience, or that can be said to be a moral agent. We are moral atoms, if you like

No matter how I turn this over in my mind, I still come up with the same idea that the individual should be accorded primary moral worth. If the smallest entity is accorded primary moral worth, then could one say that the family would have primary moral worth, then the community, then the state or nation.

When one says moral agent, I take it to mean that the individual can make moral decisions and perform moral actions. If individuals could make the right decisions, then the family, community, nation would be making the right decisions.

I am not sure if we are looking at “centre of experience” in the same way. I don’t want this to sound proud or worse, silly. But when I look toward the centre of me, I use my experience to make evaluations. When I say experience, I include what I have learned from books and other people, the experience of my thinking and imagining, and so on. Thus, if I were to ask if I am of primary moral worth, intuitively I would say yes.

But then I might doubt. I would like someone in authority to tell me I am worthy of respect–in other words I am primary in society’s opinion. Out of respect to non-theists, I don’t want to immediately jump to the God argument. However, I would like to propose Jesus as He lived and taught in the Gospels as a sound, independent authority on the primary moral worth of the individual. I believe that His words and more important His actions can be taken at face value. If He were sitting at a computer right now, I’m sure He would be contributing a post to this thread. He would probably begin by saying that one afternoon, He was hot and tired and chose to sit near the well… He was well aware of what His culture thought about Samaria and women …yet, He chose to treat the individual approaching Him as worthy of His profound respect. (John 4: 1-42)

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred from the moment of conception.