When it comes down to it, are morals and ethics just personal preferences?

Some morals and ethics are universal, I think. Murder for example. I’d wager that the only people (outside of war) who disagree with the statement ‘Murder is wrong’ are mentally ill. Then there are the ‘lessor sins’ like stealing and cheating. I think nearly all people would agree that those things are wrong, even those who do it. They certainly know it is wrong, and wouldn’t want it to happen to them… but they do it anyway. Lying has some grey area. Some feel certain that it is never ok to lie, but others feel that it depends on the circumstances.

I think morals and ethics evolve. Like biologically evolved traits, some morals are better adaptations than others.

Eyes are not universal in the animal kingdom. But they’ve evolved independently about 40 times. Animals with eyes, with only a few exceptions, tend to be better off than animals without eyes. Having eyes, in terms of natural selection, just seems like a really good idea.

The same exact idea applies to morals in human society. Laws against murder, for example, are not universal (murder is a big problem in undeveloped tribes), but they are very common, and this is because they are a good adaptation for a society to have. A society where murder is enforced against is going to be much more stable than a society where grudge killings, for instance, are allowed.

Other examples are laws against stealing and adultery, laws governing “torts,” and moral principles encouraging altruism and social sacrifice. Societies with these ideas are going to have a better chance of surviving—and, consequently, of spreading these ideas—than societies without them.

That said, human society is not a static thing. Just as animal traits adapt to changing environments, human morals do (and should!) adapt to our changing society and world. One obvious example are ancient laws regarding adultery. In old societies, women could not work and were considered to be an economic burden, so “marriage” was an economic arrangement where a husband basically purchases a wife from her father. Since women were conceived of as essentially property, adultery was akin to stealing (it was also only defined from a male perspective—women always commit adultery out of wedlock, but men only commit adultery if they’re sleeping with another man’s wife).

Today, our society has evolved. The development of technology now allows women to make money, so the concept of marriage as an economic arrangement is a vestige. The idea of romantic love is also a relatively new development, refocusing marriage as a personal relationship rather than as an economic contract. For this reason, while I still think adultery is wrong, I don’t think it makes sense to enforce laws against it or punish people who commit it. Society has evolved, and our morals about adultery ought to evolve with it.

Another example is the concept of property. What will property mean in 50 years when everything valuable is essentially information that can be easily copied and pasted? I honestly don’t know.

Yes, yes, yes. With your example of killing people, the ancient cultures of Central America incorporated live human sacrifice into their religious practice. That’s killing someone, but, in their belief system of morals and ethics, it was perfectly acceptable. The same could be said of issues that our society deals with today, ie abortion, gay marriage, polygamy, etc. Your personal preferences can be influenced by the people living around you, but, when it comes down to it, you believe what you want to believe. There is no universal right or wrong, only the laws and societal standards we learn from the culture we live in.

@augustlan, the statement “murder is wrong” is a tautology—murder, by definition, is always wrong. The word murder means “killing that is wrong to do.”

So you can’t really disagree with the statement “murder is wrong.” The disagreements always lie in what types of killings are wrong, and thus constitute murder.

That said, there are some native tribes that do not regulate killing at all. So they have no conception of “murder.” Though killing someone often means that his family would then come after you.

Ethics and morals help human beings live in social groups, which we have a biological imperative to do.

What does not seem to be built in to people is the concept of equality. Therefore, ethics and morals are dictated by whatever aspect of a society is in power.

@Qingu Point taken… how about ‘killing outside of self-defense’?

@Qingu has a very good explanation of where morals (or ethics, I’m never sure quite what the difference is) come from. They are a survival trait. Societies that develop moral systems and persuade the members of that society to behave according to that moral system will have less strife, and be more productive, thus gaining an advantage over other societies.

Many issues are involved in developing morality, but most have to do with reducing strife. Since disparities in income can cause strife, as well as advancing the whole society, the morality around money is more fluid. Some systems insist on equalizing everything; others allow differences, and still others allow difference but glorify those with less, as being somehow more noble.

Additionally, there is the law of the jungle, or frontier law. Since society is more sparse, and less cohesive, it tends to be more laissez faire than more crowded societies. The frontier is just inventing itself, and has yet to develop any strong moral system. Laws are generally the codification of a moral system.

I think there are some things you just don’t do. Some are universally unacceptable. For other things it depends on how moral you are, or want to be, and what you value. What if your best friend cheated on his girlfriend? You found out and he asks you to keep it a secret. What do you do? Do you value friendship or honesty?

@augustlan, that definition would include killing in warfare, as well as capital punishment, which many people do not consider “murder.”

It would also include the killing of animals for food.

I don’t even think it’s possible to pin down an exact definition for “murder” beyond “unlawful killing.” The laws regulating killing vary greatly from society to society. Even within a society, many people have different ideas about what kind of killing ought to be allowed.

Even something like “randomly going around and killing people for no apparent reason” was allowed in some societies, such as feudal Japan—it is said that samurai tested their swords’ sharpness by seeing how cleanly they could chop off a peasant’s head.

Sheesh, those damn semantics. (I did specifically state “outside of war”)
Ok, go with unlawful killing.

On a societal level, no, but on a personal level I do believe morals and ethics are personal choices. We can choose to follow the morals and ethics of our society or we can choose not to. I believe that once people become aware of the interconnectedness of every living thing, we better realize how our choices come back to effect us. I think morals and ethics that develop are much more ingrained and followed than those that are dictated by government or some deity.

Even “murder” being a universal aversion is dubious, like @TitsMcGhee said. It’s hard to accept that there’s some kind of innate moral imperative for something as complex as “to take another person’s life, after they’ve been born, except if it’s in self-defense, or unless your government asks you to do so for political reasons, or unless your system of law asks you to as punishment.”

Another issue here is that there’s been two arguments that have not been teased apart: “innate vs. invented” and “isolated vs. universal”. I wouldn’t say they’re the same thing. Related, maybe. But not synonymous.

Maybe morals and ethics are grounded in a simple quirk of human neurology: we relate to others. When we watch others, our brains, through the mirror neurons, produce a neural echo of the observed activity just as if we ourselves were performing the action. When we watch someone jump, our brains fire the same circuitry that fires when we ourselves jump. When they cry, we feel sad; when they laugh, we feel happy, all without even knowing the reason. We naturally internalize the experiences and emotions of others. Because of this, it’s normal for us to want the people around us to be happy and pain free.

In this way too, we come to learn that we share common responses to various stimuli. What causes you to get angry likely causes me to get angry too, and what hurts me probably hurts you. All of this is the basis for empathy and compassion. We have the innate capacity to share the experience of another as if it were our own. Research has shown this to be the case.

If we start from these two givens- we basically want others to be happy, and we can assume that what we don’t like, others won’t like- then we have the basis for deriving a moral code. The particulars of the code will vary across time and cultures, because it will be shaped by many other considerations: existential threats, religious dogma, custom, scarcity, competition, etc. But this embedded sense of empathy/compassion acts, I think, like a gentle gravity that resists the pull of any antipathic forces and draws us ever back to the recurring themes of morality.

@tonedef: PERFECT. So much lurve for that one.

@Harp, I agree. I also think that this empathetic force seems to be expanding slowly but surely as humanity develops, like a gaping black hole of snuggles and sunshine.

Empathy used to be limited to your immediate family. Then the tribe. Then the broader cultural, religious, and/or political unit. Much of modern culture extends empathy to all of humanity, and increasingly to animals with developed nervous systems.

I imagine in the near future we’re all going to start feeling more and more empathy for robots. In the far future, our robot-human-hybrid descendants will probably feel empathy for, like, bosons and shit.

Morals ARE personal.

Killing s right, in some cases, such as war, as well as in human sacrifice (in Crete and central America). Also, think about self-defense. Also, think of the death penalty

Stealing can be right if someone is starving and needs to steal food.

Pedophilia is right if the younger person agrees, to some people.

Monogamy isn’t universal, so going out with multiple spouses could be considered ethical.

Respect for the dead is not universal. When battling enemies in medieval times, people would spit on the flames of the burning dead soldiers so that they would not come back and haunt them.

The use of swear words does not have a universal law. There are so many languages in the world, that almost any action you say is a swear in someone else’s language. For instance, the “A-OK” symbol (making a circle with your first finger and thumb) i north america is very offensive to Japanese people.

Pedophilia is never right. A child cannot give informed consent.

i assume, and correct me if i am wrong that when you say “pedophilia” you mean an adult (let’s just say for the sake of argument, a 30 yr old) has sex with a young person (let’s say 12). but pedophilia is a normative concept. it is no different than using the word “murder.” an example is that there are societies who consider a man “giving” his sperm to a young boy (through an act we think of as sexual, anal penetration or fellatio) as a right of passage into manhood. that is “sex with a child” but it is not pedophilia.

but i do agree that pedophilia (anyone rapping a child) is bad bad bad horrible.

i believe the answer is yes: morals and ethics are logical/rational conclusions about behaviour that an individual or group of individuals have come to understand as “best practices” with a view towards living the highest possible quality of life.

as for whether any are “universal”.. i would just say that some conclusions tend to be rationally irrefutable.. some rules are just so common-sensical and practical in all cases that the term “universal” seems fitting… until someone comes up with a better idea.

Technically, yes. People have the right and freedom to choose to belive what they want. Even if it is law, they can opt to rebel.

-Sellz

Think about when there is no law. The law is a thousand kilometers away. Maybe more. Even if they knew, they didn’t care. Think about place where many gangs with guns are roaming around and people are starving, and if they get help, the helpers are stolen from and killed, too. Where are your morals and ethics then? Where is logic and rationality?

There are not rules and even if there were, they would not make sense. You never know who to trust. I think you have game here—prisoner’s dilemma? In that place, people always choosing to defect. I’m not there any more. Thank god. Sleeping with eyes open and gun under pillow, and knife, too, in your boots.

There are not rights either. Except what you can do for yourself. No one takes anything for granted. No one. Little cooperation, too. Only familys stick together. I did not have family. Now I have scars that weren’t there before. I am so stupid to go there, I think now. Here is much micer and easier. Much more comfortable for my old age.

That’s something to consider, rancid. wow. Wheretf were you living?

Well, in those cases i would still say that every individual used their logic and rationality to the best of their abilities. They still followed their own ethical code. Gangs for example, work together to perform a raid. They don’t shoot eachother in the process. They stick together to rob people effectively because this is what they perceive as being worthwhile living.

At the time, it is something like the Sahara desert. There were few cities. None, really. Just a few huts carved out of rock here and there. I like to think of it as Arrakis. The cities were warrens of armed gangs. I saw the runin come into being. Too many wars. No one knows who to turst.

When I lived in the South of that land, it is the same. Killing everywher. I try to help, but it is impossible. Crazy. People don’t think like human being. No morality anwywhere. Maybe a few people are nice, but hard to trust even to help them.

PERSONAL

Everyonne decides for themselves what is right and what is wrong.

if morals are personal, then why do you have them? what is the point of personal morals if nothing is universal?

@alive, I don’t understand the logic of your question.

My preference for oatmeal cookie ice cream is personal. It’s not universal. How on earth does that imply that I shouldn’t like oatmeal cookie ice cream?

People in Afghanistan believe that women should be stoned to death if they try to educate themselves. You disagree with them. Thus, neither view is “universal.” So by your logic, you shouldn’t even bother to have an opinion on whether or not schoolgirls should be stoned to death?

Qingu said something that struck me: Empathy used to be limited to your immediate family. Then the tribe. Then the broader cultural, religious, and/or political unit. Much of modern culture extends empathy to all of humanity, and increasingly to animals with developed nervous systems.

It is no surprise to me that the same increasing universality can be seen in religion too.
And like religion, there is a universal truth that we all have the capacity to recognize deep within, but we also have the free will to choose whether or not to follow those truths.

How we interpret those universal truths is what leads to our own individual sense of morals and ethics. This is why is seems that morals grow and adapt with the development of humanity.

Thus, our actions do not have to reflect that universal morality, but they should.

@Qingu i think you understand exactly. if two beliefs can be opposite and neither one is right then what is the point? if i say women should be educated and someone else says they shouldn’t, how does a society ever judge anything as right or wrong? and how can one society claim their way is better? how do we ever improve society is we have no concept of what is right and wrong?

(the reason that your ice cream example doesn’t apply is because in that instance your preference does not matter to anyone but yourself. maybe if you have a sibling who HATES it and your mom only has enough money to buy one kind of ice cream then the ice cream example becomes applicable to society. you can still like it, but how do you balance it with other preferences i.e. a battle over preferences)

@fireside so you are saying that universals do exist?

Yes, there are universal truths that should supersede the cultural traditions over time.
It has been happening for thousands of years and will take quite a bit longer to become globally manifest.

but how do you know which ones are universal and not cultural?

I look to religion:

“the essence of the Law of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Muhammad, the Báb, and Bahá‘u’lláh, and which lasts and is established in all the prophetic cycles. It will never be abrogated, for it is spiritual and not material truth; it is faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy. It shows mercy to the poor, defends the oppressed, gives to the wretched and uplifts the fallen.”

`Abdu’l-Bahá

@alive, the point is the one is better adapted than the other.

Is having an eye better than not having an eye? Well, if you live in a cave, no—having eyes takes energy which would be wasted in darkness. Elsewhere, though, eyes are better.

Is stoning women better than not? You can make a strong argument that not stoning them is better adapted to the world we live in, to the happiness of the people involved, to the stability of our culture, in terms of the idea of “empathy”—better according to various factors. This is why I choose to believe certain morals over others.

Why do you choose to believe certain morals over others?

@fireside but believing in god is not universal. so is a person who is benevolent, trustworthy, defends the oppressed, and etc all these good traits are they not good people because they do not believe in god/ don’t have faith?

@qingu being “adapted” to nature/the environment is different than being adapted to a culture you live in (though i do see the analogy). and i think it could be argued that empathy is harmful to people as well. how can it be good to make yourself feel the negativity that someone else is feeling.

the reason i asked this question in the first place is because i don’t know what to believe anymore.

@alive, empathy is simply a state of nature. It’s how our brains are wired, so it’s part of the “environment” that our morals are adapted to.

Which is lucky for us because following the impulses of empathy seems to get us to cooperate with each other more—which in turn creates better-functioning societies, which in turn create more of a selective pressure for empathy. So it’s basically a self-selecting cycle.

Personally speaking, as an individual capable of suffering, I’m glad this is the case because the more people who are empathetic to my suffering, the less they’d want to hurt me.

What do you mean “you don’t know what to believe anymore” exactly?

well i am reading a book about pragmatism and they seem to think that talking about ethics is a question that cannot be answered so they leave it behind by saying ethical theories are simply based on some personal preferences (similar to the way that the “god or no god” question cannot ever be answered by humans) so they avoid the talk altogether. as someone who does happen to worry about women being stoned (for example) i find it worrisome to leave ethics as simply a “preference” and nothing more. because then why does my preference matter any more than someone else’s preference?

I would recommend reading a book called Nonzero by Robert Wright. I think it reconciles a lot of what you talk about with the idea that, you know, certain systems of ethics really just seem to work better than others. He basically fleshes out the argument that I’m making in this thread, anyway.

@alive – Those are spiritual truths, not morals. But I believe that they reflect a universal morality. Love of God is not required to be a moral person.

@alive, eeeee… your book sounds misguided. :)

first of all.. you never have to worry about “what should i believe” because you don’t have a choice in the matter. You can’t choose to believe that you’re typing on an elephant rather than a computer. You happen to believe you’re using a computer and you can’t change that belief. The evidence is forcing that belief.

None of your beliefs are chosen. The evidence you observe (as processed through your individual logical faculties) determines your beliefs in all cases.

@ninjacolin beliefs are not things that can be “proven” with evidence. if that was true no one would ever have differing beliefs because all you would have to do is show the evidence.

and to say “none of your beliefs are chosen” means people do not have free will. do you think people do not have free will?

(the book is called The Metaphysical Club by Lois Menand. It is a historical and philosophical account of Pragmatism)

@alive, hmm.. i disagree with your word choices in your paraphrasing of my point so i’ll just restate it the way i mean it: beliefs are things that you have as a RESULT of evidence as processed thru your individual logical faculties.

for example, if i want you to believe that the next word I type will be “fire”.. all i have to do is type: “fire” and voila you’ve just been forced to believe that i typed the word “fire.” 3 times in fact. you have no choice in the matter. I can make you believe I’ve typed the word “ice” if i want too. there’s no limits really. a drunk man at the pub can make you believe he’s punched you. a judge can make you believe you’ve been convicted of a crime. your child could make you believe she’s gotten an A on her paper.

You have no choice in any belief. The Evidence you process dictates your beliefs.

@alive said: “if that was true no one would ever have differing beliefs because all you would have to do is show the evidence”

I believe this is exactly the case. But the problem is people don’t really ever deal with the exact same information. Everyone’s unique histories and experience make for different interpretations of the evidence resulting in different conclusions.

@alive said: “and to say “none of your beliefs are chosen” means people do not have free will. do you think people do not have free will?”

yes, that’s right. :)

ah, i see. you are a determinist. well that changes the game a bit… so does determinism imply that there are universals? it is just a matter of whether we see them or not?

Yes, @alive. Once again, I’m not sure if that statement is phrased in the best way possible but the idea behind your question is correct, I would say. Hmm..

Essentially, there is a best answer for every dilemma. We don’t always have all the right information at our fingertips though, so we end up making mistakes due to ignorance. But over time, as our inconsistencies are exposed we correct ourselves and continue on the path toward enlightenment.

Such reparation is evident through all of human history. The demolishing of Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, the Death Penalty.. we’re currently working on Pollution, Hunger and Malnutrition. These things are all logical inconsistencies that have been exposed that needed (or need) to be done away with. As soon as we see a problem, we find a way to beat it. That’s just how any animal works. We seek out and tend toward the most logically consistent conclusion given our current set of information in all cases. This is why a woman and black man were both able to run amazing campaigns for the presidency of the USA, because things have gotten better.

@alive said: “i find it worrisome to leave ethics as simply a “preference” and nothing more.”

Your preference is always in all cases the most rational, logical, sensible solution you are able to ascertain given all the evidence you’ve personally taken in through the course of your life.

So then, someone who happens to believe that stoning women is a cool thing to do.. is someone who hasn’t been exposed to sufficient evidence (in this case, evidence in the form of arguments for equality) against it as you have. He has a different set of ideas in his mind than you do that make his actions seem perfectly acceptable to him. Either he is ignorant or else you are.

@alive asked: “because then why does my preference matter any more than someone else’s preference?”

Your preference matters because only one of you are right. If the two of you could patiently weigh your arguments, one of you could be shown to be wrong. Whoever learns that they are wrong will then change their ways to include the new moralities that come with the perceived best logic.

This is how positive change in the world occurs. Logically consistent ideas (hence, preferences) catch on like a virus. People start demanding them. Authorities start giving in. Memetics to the rescue.