Wendy the Philosopher
Aug. 4th, 2005 09:52 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
voxwomanI'm rewriting a bit of a conversation I'm having on UF this morning having to do with morality, good, evil, truth, Truth and TRUTH. Mostly because UF is such an ephemeral place to put such cleverness and I think I've done some pretty hoopy frood thinking here.
Morality has nothing to do with "Truth" (the capital "T" is there purposefully, to distinguish "universal, objective Truth" from "regular" truth).
Moral standards are a matter of opinion. In society, it's a "consensus opinion" and it's what keeps me from driving to the grocery store in my birthday suit (that, and the "morality/health laws" regulating dress codes). We all have a social contract with each other that enables us to live in close proximity to others without killing them (for the most part -- killing neighbors is still a fairly rare occurrence).
I feel that I can make the above claim based on history. Up until a hundred or so years ago, it was considered "moral" for a man to own slaves and to beat his wife and children, as they were also "his property" to do with as he pleased. Even now, there are cultural practices in various cultures on the globe that are "amoral" or abhorrent to one group, yet are considered "perfectly normal" to the culture in which it is practiced (such as circumcision). The social contract is a living and fluid thing (as is the "consensus morality") and it changes over time, with the tastes of the society that enforces it.
You as an individual are able to decide what is moral for you AND act upon it. And people do so every day. However, if you grate against the "social contract" (by acting in ways that are detrimental to those around you), there's a good chance that the rest of society will do something to get you to conform or to remove you from its presence (usually by enacting laws and then enforcing them).
Morality, like ethics, is a personal thing. It's not something you can legislate, and, despite what preachers may think, it's not something you can instill through fear. All you can do is "regulate behavior" that way.
As far as Truth goes, as long as we are observers of the universe, we will never perceive the "objective Truth". And we are designed to be observers.
I don't see the relevance that truth, Truth or TRUTH has in this discussion at all. Morality, good, and evil are all concepts that are based on dualistic thinking (morality is in the list only to the degree that a person's moral code dictates where an action falls on the good-evil axis).
If TRUTH is absolute (that's the parameter for this discussion, anyway, and I'll work with that. I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's only because I don't think we as humans are equipped to perceive TRUTH). TRUTH doesn't get involved with the duality of good/evil. It just is.
IMO, "morality" is the process by which a human decides upon "right action" for any given situation. Whether it conforms to the consensus of the rest of society is another matter. It is close to, but not the same as "ethics" (which in my personal lexicon is more of a set of rules rather than a process).
If there is an objective TRUTH to the universe, I doubt that it will have anything to do with good or evil, except to acknowledge that one can't exist without the other (as they are comparative concepts). I suspect it will be something very beautiful but also very stark, and not much concerned about the minutiae of living beings on planet Earth.
Morality has nothing to do with "Truth" (the capital "T" is there purposefully, to distinguish "universal, objective Truth" from "regular" truth).
Moral standards are a matter of opinion. In society, it's a "consensus opinion" and it's what keeps me from driving to the grocery store in my birthday suit (that, and the "morality/health laws" regulating dress codes). We all have a social contract with each other that enables us to live in close proximity to others without killing them (for the most part -- killing neighbors is still a fairly rare occurrence).
I feel that I can make the above claim based on history. Up until a hundred or so years ago, it was considered "moral" for a man to own slaves and to beat his wife and children, as they were also "his property" to do with as he pleased. Even now, there are cultural practices in various cultures on the globe that are "amoral" or abhorrent to one group, yet are considered "perfectly normal" to the culture in which it is practiced (such as circumcision). The social contract is a living and fluid thing (as is the "consensus morality") and it changes over time, with the tastes of the society that enforces it.
You as an individual are able to decide what is moral for you AND act upon it. And people do so every day. However, if you grate against the "social contract" (by acting in ways that are detrimental to those around you), there's a good chance that the rest of society will do something to get you to conform or to remove you from its presence (usually by enacting laws and then enforcing them).
Morality, like ethics, is a personal thing. It's not something you can legislate, and, despite what preachers may think, it's not something you can instill through fear. All you can do is "regulate behavior" that way.
As far as Truth goes, as long as we are observers of the universe, we will never perceive the "objective Truth". And we are designed to be observers.
I don't see the relevance that truth, Truth or TRUTH has in this discussion at all. Morality, good, and evil are all concepts that are based on dualistic thinking (morality is in the list only to the degree that a person's moral code dictates where an action falls on the good-evil axis).
If TRUTH is absolute (that's the parameter for this discussion, anyway, and I'll work with that. I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's only because I don't think we as humans are equipped to perceive TRUTH). TRUTH doesn't get involved with the duality of good/evil. It just is.
IMO, "morality" is the process by which a human decides upon "right action" for any given situation. Whether it conforms to the consensus of the rest of society is another matter. It is close to, but not the same as "ethics" (which in my personal lexicon is more of a set of rules rather than a process).
If there is an objective TRUTH to the universe, I doubt that it will have anything to do with good or evil, except to acknowledge that one can't exist without the other (as they are comparative concepts). I suspect it will be something very beautiful but also very stark, and not much concerned about the minutiae of living beings on planet Earth.
