Do we need a universal standard of morality?

[richrf]

Originally Posted by deepthot

That's progress from saying it's impossible. Yes, it may take time.

I always feel uncomfortable saying never. But given the last 5000 years, I don't see how it might happen. On the other hand, who knows.

In the long run a good system will out

-- just as Einstein's relativity view won out after he published a paper on it in 1905.

I think the variables involved are different, since we are talking about human behavior, which has an enormous number of variables when it comes to morality, compared to the speed of light which has literally no variables. I would compare human behavior to quantum mechanics which is just a set of possibilities and random events with probable outcomes. The possibilities when it comes to human behavior appear to me limitless and therefore getting everyone to agree on anything seems to me to be a very improbably though possible event. Of course, this might occur at one moment and quickly change the next.

At this site: BayNVC - Bay Area Nonviolent Communication
you will notice that the first principle is: All human beings share the same needs: We all have the same needs, although the strategies we use to meet these needs may differ. Conflict occurs at the level of strategies, not at the level of needs.

I think we share the need to breathe, eat, and rest. Within these three there are enormous number of variables between humans. Beyond this, it depends upon the individual and what he feels he would like to do with his life, which appears to me to be limitless in possibilities.

And the second principle is: Our world offers sufficient resources for meeting everyone’s basic needs:

Probably yes. If we run out, there is a self-regulating system called death that sort of takes care of the issue. So no matter what, the above statement seems reasonable.

The scarcity experienced by so many people arises because we have not designed our social structures to meet everyone’s needs.

I think otherwise. There is something going on in the human race that doesn't change. Acquiring and consuming is an activity that people love to indulge in. I have my guess why. Not too dissimilar from a game of Risk or Monopoly.

Abraham Maslow, in his paper on The Hierarchy of Human Needs summed it up pretty well as to what those needs are, and how those needs lower on the scale are prepotent over those above it on the scale. That paper has been so widely-reprinted that it should be easy to find on the web.

I think the paper pretty well sums up Maslow's needs and probably the needs of those who believe that his paper is accurate. But I can assure you he does not speak for me and many people I know. I think there is a bit of hubris when someone seeks to speak about the needs of others. I think he would be on much firmer ground if he just said "these are my needs".

Yes, context does affect morality. I agree. This refers to the application of the definition, not to the definition itself, though. As a term in my system's network it is constant - until a better definition comes along.

And this is where we differ most. I believe the definition of morality arises directly from the context. I do not believe it is independent. For me, the way I arrive at ideas is by just observing what IS. I don't assume that what is needs to be fixed. Instead, I accept what is as a natural evolution of the human consciousness and I ask myself the simple questions How and Why? This is how I seek to better understand the nature of human life.

Thanks for sharing with me your very interesting ideas.

Rich

[William]

In my opinion there is no morality if there is individual relative morality. That in itself will create immorality as no two will be complimentary or cooperative; which "is morality" IMO, and reaching that understanding will define exactly what that universal morality will bring. We truly do have a lot to learn, IMO.

William

[richrf]

Originally Posted by William

In my opinion there is no morality if there is individual relative morality. That in itself will create immorality as no two will be complimentary or cooperative; which "is morality" IMO, and reaching that understanding will define exactly what that universal morality will bring. We truly do have a lot to learn, IMO.

William

Well, I think that is what there is. Each person has a professed public morality, which they may or may not embrace in their private domain of themselves. Then they have the morality that may change given a chance event in time (e.g. finding a wallet with hundred dollars). Then they have moralities which they suggest that they have depending upon the group that they are involved with (e.g. parents, buddies, family, etc.). So, it changes all the time and who knows what lurks in the heart of men (and women of course). ??

Rich

[deepthot]

Originally Posted by richrf

... Each person has a professed public morality, which they may or may not embrace in their private domain of themselves. Then they have the morality that may change given a chance event in time (e.g. finding a wallet with hundred dollars). Then they have moralities which they suggest that they have depending upon the group that they are involved with (e.g. parents, buddies, family, etc.). So, it changes all the time and who knows what lurks in the heart of men (and women of course). ??

Rich

Here is a relevant passage from my essay, LIVING THE GOOD LIFE. It occurs near the end of the document:

A branch of math called Non-linear Dynamic Equations can be used to account for the multiple roles we play in life, the many faces we present to others, what psychologists would call our "multiple selves." All of these variable selves combine to be equivalent to our one Self-Concept. Rick Ringel, a 45-year-old computer-scientist, says that human individuals are not so much self-contradictory as they are complex. He explains that the tools that Complexity theorists use -- such as Chaos Theory with its sets of Attractors --are appropriate for Ethics, especially for the Self-Concept and its accompanying Self-Image.

He also has shown that a model derived from Chaos Theory concludes that the easiest way to overcome a bad habit – or even a bad character trait -- is through new circumstances, rather than attempting by brute-force to change that behavior in the existing environment. After developing a new alternative attractor (a self-image without the vice), the range of the attractor-with-the-vice is reduced. In other words, it suggests we can chip away at our vices by bringing good habits into environments that get incrementally more similar to the problem environment.This model highlights the fact that education plays a role in introducing new self-image attractors into one’s Self-Concept and thus offers methods we can use to attain the Good Life.

The model predicts that life changes bring growth opportunities.
It says in effect that the best way to break a bad habit is to have a change of scene

[parker pyne]

Originally Posted by Mutian

Wow, I am surprised by this semi-essay~ Your notion about the first, second and third world morality is very interesting and right in part.

If I understood right, were you talking about the transformation from the internal sanction to the external one? More specifically, at the outset, morality is oriented by individual intuitions to which we call the internal sanction; as civilization moves on, the role of empathy augments which transforms the sort of intuition to those external laws (religion, constitution... etc). This is also the reason why you claimed that external morality is based on collective moralities. Am I right so far? Please correct if it not be so.

Thanks so much for the response! I'm glad I registered here.

Yes, this is my view. I believe humans yearn for interconnectivity, and external sanctions create a common basis for us to relate to each other. Language, law, religion (the latter two of which are based on morals) - the glue for a cohesive, interactive society.

Originally Posted by Mutian

I agree with most of your ideas if I have understood right. What I could not agree is that, I think, even those third countries reach the first-country-standard economically can't and shouldn't they share the same moral law, for what is accepted or welcomed in the U.S. might not be upheld in China such as freedom of choice in marriage, given that the real conception of freedom of choice has been warped and degenerated into irresponsibility in the U.S.. I will give you an example for the sake of clarity.

In my political science class, we had a discussion regarding the topic of teenage mother in the U.S. which has become a prevalent phenomenon. I totally criticize such a behavior of irresponsibility and immaturity, meanwhile most of my American classmates believe that teenage mothers are the hallmark of their freedom of choice to which they are highly proud of. To the contrary, in China, we see teenage mother as something that should never happen, for a pregnant girl would bring insult, extra burden, and bad reputation upon herself (since she is too casual about sexual intercourse without having enough knowledge of contraception.) and her family. Most importantly, she is too casual about and irresponsible for her fidelity and purity which should have been cared about with full attention and seriousness. So, do you think it would be appropriate for Chinese people to apply the same attitude adopted by my American classmates in China?

Ah, thanks for bringing it up. There's a fuzziness with morality that is created by the traditions and customs of each culture. (Not to say that each individual of a specific culture share the same morality either. But in generalisation it is clear they will lean a specific way.) I can't speculate the source of these differing traditions, I'm sure the factors are covert or reasonably subtle.

The taboo associated with sex between nations differ in degrees, and China seems to lean towards sexual conservatism. First might I ask, is abortion illegal in china? Or are the sanctions purely social?

Of course, I don't think the legal system is a perfect moral law giver. I think the more it abides by the aversion of pain, and less on traditions and customs, the more civilised the law will be.

Originally Posted by Mutian

Laws are like organs on a person's face, Brad Peter's eyes might be attractive, but it does not follow that Peter's eyes will continue to be attrative on Tiger Woods' face. A beautiful woman is charming because the eyes, nose, ears of her are suitable for her, and only for her; not because her nose is Jessica Alba's, her eyes are Queen Diana's. We all know the aphorism that, "one man's meal is another man's poison." Thus, my conclusion is that, moral laws of different cultures can, to a great extent, resemble each other without being totally the same or being universalized, for such universalization may backfire.

I am looking forward to hearing your judgments.

Not going to lie, completely agree, and a very enjoyable analogy in addition.

[salima]

Originally Posted by Mutian

I myself have been perplexed by this question for a long time. I appreciate Kant's deontological way of thinking, meanwhile agree in part with John Stuart Mill's utilitarian way of calculating ends. Do we really need a universal moral law?

I am here to beseech your insights.

i wonder if anyone disagrees with the golden rule? actually, i guess i do; someone may want something done to them that i would not want done to me...

i thought the geneva convention was a good start. too bad some western countries have pitched it in the rubbish. i fail to see why it follows that a global westernization would provide a better moral universal standard than an eastern, northern or western one. (forgot who it was on this thread that suggested that).

maybe i am confusing two different agendas-there should be universal laws of what is allowable in society and what is not, that is something to strive for, a consensus on the legality of certain acts. but i dont think a universal morality is really necessary or possible. some people will always have a higher standard of ethics than others within the same framework-and that is ok with me. it is part of personality and personhood, isnt it?

[Imnotrussian]

i have a strong belief that although a universal system of ethics is a nice and utopian idea it will always be challenged by another system of ethics like for example, western cultures bury the dead whereas some tribes in africa eat the dead, but we both respect our dead in 2 different ways, its all down to the individual, because we are not of one mind we shouldnt expect others to have the same like minded opinions, and on that theory nobody could really be punished for their crimes.
having said that, there must be a code of regulations to live by in order for the comfort of others to be appreciated and respected otherwise it will be total chaos

[deepthot]

Originally Posted by richrf

I always feel uncomfortable saying never. But given the last 5000 years, I don't see how it might happen. On the other hand, who knows. (Empasis added.)

{We noted that in another thread you were willing to say that in time scientists will detect photons emerging from "nothing" in a vacuum. That showed you had patience and ideals.}
I explained how it could happen in my paper, LIVING THE GOOD LIFE, in the Introduction, and in the finall chapter. Perhaps it was scanned too quickly and the reader didn't pay attention?
http://tinyurl.com/24swmd

Originally Posted by richrf

...human behavior... has an enormous number of variables .... I would compare human behavior to quantum mechanics which is just a set of possibilities and random events with probable outcomes. The possibilities when it comes to human behavior appear to me limitless and therefore getting everyone to agree on anything seems to me to be a very improbably though possible event. Of course, this might occur at one moment and quickly change the next..

I agree with this. In fact, Dr. Mark Moore, in Savannah, Georgia, USA, used a model from Quantum Mechanics to account for human values. Formal axiology and its critics - Google Books
More such math needs to be utilized to account for the probabilites. He used only one branch of it. Yet quantum theory uses several other kinds of math. He did not develop it enough to a point where he could make predictions and propose some interesting experiments to confirm them.

Originally Posted by richrf

I think we share the need to breathe, eat, and rest. Within these three there are enormous number of variables between humans. Beyond this, it depends upon the individual and what he feels he would like to do with his life, which appears to me to be limitless in possibilities.
... the above statement [of yours] seems reasonable. ...

I think the paper pretty well sums up Maslow's needs and probably the needs of those who believe that his paper is accurate. But I can assure you he does not speak for me and many people I know. I think there is a bit of hubris when someone seeks to speak about the needs of others. I think he would be on much firmer ground if he just said "these are my needs".

Have you even read what the hierarchy is? Have you seen the diagram on this page: Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and diagrams of Maslow's motivational theory - pyramid diagrams of Maslow's theory
Can you tell me why it doesn't apply to you??
He thought long and hard about what human beings had in common, including their need to acquire -- which easily spills over into greed. He pointed out that people focusing on their need to achieve, and to acquire status, are not likely to focus on the need for beauty, justice, and self-actualization, what he called 'the higher needs.' This is his "prepotency theory." Those who are striving to belong are not able to give their undivided attention to achieving, to romance and adventure, etc., which are higher up on the pyramid of needs. Do you have good evidence to refute his theories? Are you thoroughly familiar with them? I notice you were able to put them down with facility....

Originally Posted by richrf

Thanks for sharing with me your very interesting ideas.
Rich

You are very welcome. And you're gracious too. I am glad you found those ideas interesting.

[Mutian]

Originally Posted by parker pyne

Thanks so much for the response! I'm glad I registered here.

Yes, this is my view. I believe humans yearn for interconnectivity, and external sanctions create a common basis for us to relate to each other. Language, law, religion (the latter two of which are based on morals) - the glue for a cohesive, interactive society.


Ah, thanks for bringing it up. There's a fuzziness with morality that is created by the traditions and customs of each culture. (Not to say that each individual of a specific culture share the same morality either. But in generalisation it is clear they will lean a specific way.) I can't speculate the source of these differing traditions, I'm sure the factors are covert or reasonably subtle.

The taboo associated with sex between nations differ in degrees, and China seems to lean towards sexual conservatism. First might I ask, is abortion illegal in china? Or are the sanctions purely social?

Of course, I don't think the legal system is a perfect moral law giver. I think the more it abides by the aversion of pain, and less on traditions and customs, the more civilised the law will be.

Not going to lie, completely agree, and a very enjoyable analogy in addition.

Well, as to the abortion question in China, what I can only tell is that abortion is not illegal, but is not deemed moral either. Or, sadly, abortion may be just an amoral event in China, for people are so busy making money without caring about such important moral issues.

[richrf]

Originally Posted by deepthot

Have you even read what the hierarchy is? Have you seen the diagram on this page: Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and diagrams of Maslow's motivational theory - pyramid diagrams of Maslow's theory.Can you tell me why it doesn't apply to you??

Yes, I did look at the hierarchy, and I think it probably provides a good depiction about Maslow's needs. However, it does not at all correspond to how I view myself, other than I would say that I have basic needs of all humans including air, water, food, sleep. Within even these categories, there are probably lots of differences between Maslow and myself.

I have learned to be somewhat open to the idea that other people view their own ideas about life different than I might view my own. My guess is that your view of life is very similar to Maslow's which is why you are attracted to his hierarchy. For me, I do not relate to the hierarchy.

You are very welcome. And you're gracious too. I am glad you found those ideas interesting.

Thank you for sharing with me your further insights and thoughts.

Rich