RE: That Bastard! (Understanding Morality)
Good write up. I personally understand morality and ethics to be relative to the individual and/or the group. This is because it is a standard and standards are determined by the person(s). Thus it is, essentially, a human concept, or an 'intelligence-based' concept and therefore not universal as applying to existence as a whole.
In the 'non-intelligent' world, i.e the world not including humanity, there is no standard of behavior, no morals, ethics or justice. It simply is. In the world regardless of humanity, rape, murder, theft and others are perfectly 'acceptable' as survival of the individual and, thus, of the species, is king.
That being said, I do not pretend that morality, ethics and justice are not important or can be disergarded. With our ability to perceive beyond basic survival and to contemplate and empathize with the world around us, I firmly believe we have a responsibility(another concept limited only to 'intelligence') to act morally, ethically and justly. To limit our harm to others and the world around us and to make right the 'wrongs' we see.
So while, as far as existence is concerned, rape may be 'acceptable', at least for survival, in the world of humans(we very much create our own world through our perception, see quantum physics), while moral relativism may lead someone to feel that rape is 'moral', it is all too likely that the victim and those around will not. This is not because rape is 'inherently' immoral but because we, as individuals and as a group, have determined that the harm brought by rape does not reasonably 'justify' the 'gain'. That is to say, it is imbalanced and unnecessary and more harmful than not.
Anyway, those are just my thoughts. As I was reading your piece, I noted that everything you used to describe these concepts involved talking about standards and the like. And whether we like to face it or not, standards are open for negotiation. They can and will change as people and groups and times change.
I think the best way to view all of this is to use the taboo-mores scale, which is essentially what morals and ethics relate to and are derived from. That which is taboo is typically seen as immoral and so it would be unethical to engage in.
Keep putting the content out. Good stuff.
I get what you're saying, and to an extent, I can agree with a good bit of it. But I would interject that that's the difference between objective and subjective--not all standards are "norms". It's another word for measure. And that's what morality is and does. It's a measure of human action/interaction. But I also used the term distinction, and that's crucial to the concept being explored here. Regardless of the shifting nature of human conception and how we describe a thing, it remains the thing. The distance from a to b is constant, regardless of the subjective human description of that distance. In other words, the yardstick is not the distance. I invite you to refute the universal moral principle of consent-based initiatory human interaction. I'd be curious to see how you'd go about it. Thanks for your feedback!
Well, normally I wouldn't refute it because I firmly believe all interaction should be consensual.
But it's simple, really. Survival trumps morals and ethics. At least as a universal standard. Humans are the weird ones in existence because we often harm ourselves in order to abide by morals and standards. This includes seeking consent even to our own detriment.
I'd like to put a disclaimer here, what I am about to say is in no way 'moral' or 'acceptable' in my opinion and by my standard, but even consensual interaction is not universal.
Simply put, if I am in danger of harm or dying, even if it means harming another who has not wronged me, the universal standards of self-preservation and survival of the species technically takes precedent. If I am starving, then I find food, even if it means another goes without.
Morals, ethics, justice, these are things to aspire to to be sure. We should do all we can to live up to them. To stand on principle above all else. But, at the end of the day, they are not and can not be universal. Even voluntary interaction. There is ALWAYS an exception in this world because it is a world of duality.
In my opinion, however, this only makes principles, morals, ethics, justice all that much more precious and important. It also makes humanity the exception to the rules of survival. We are not bound by a universal standard of behavior. We are not bound to seek to survive and propogate the species even to the detriment of another. Unlike many animals, we are not compelled to procreate so much so that we will resort to rape. Nor do we have to thanks to our advances in technology. Unlike many animals, we are not limited in our ability to seek food to taking what we can find and get away with. We can communicate, we can ask and we can sacrifice. If you have food and I am starving, I don't have to choose whether or not to steal it from you and let you starve. We can communicate, discuss, negotiate and share so that, while we both may not be sated, we both will have enough to live to find more. We can choose whether or not to work together, whether or not to share, whether or not to sacrifice ourselves for another, even our 'competition' by universal standards.
So, no, consensual society is not a universal standard. It is the exception. And we should strive for it. As I said, we are not compelled to abide by principle but we should surely aspire to do so and there can be no higher principle than to live and let live. It is the oldest and most tested and proven standard. When we operate via consent, we can do so much more than when we give in to the natural standard of survival above all else.
In short, morals are not the rule but the exception. And we are the personification of that exception because, unlike all life that we know of, we can choose how we interact in this world. We can choose how much we sacrifice, how little, how much harm we do or don't do in pursuit of survival. We can choose not to survive.