Morality is defined by society

[mw2xboxplayer]

As a response to the Religion and morals thread & to debate God's role in morality, I would like to propose that morality is defined by the socially acceptable behavior of a particular culture.

What we perceive as morality is nothing more than the product of cultural views, determined by what is acceptable in everyday society.

Here's a "model" of my proposal:

1.) A society forms.
2.) That society creates laws and regulations on behavior to prevent anarchy. (Such as banning the killing other persons.)
3.) The views of that society would become a unique culture that would be based upon the guidelines set by the aforementioned laws and regulations.
4.) Over time, the culture would define what is "right/wrong" (morality) because said culture would be based upon the laws that define what is socially acceptable.

Put simply: Society teaches us what is right/wrong. These teachings are based upon the laws and regulations of said society.

[Himster]

Well duh.
It's after these moralities have formed that the labels of divine revelation are applied. It's a rare society that doesn't claim to be the absolute authority on morality.

[mw2xboxplayer]

Well duh.
It's after these moralities have formed that the labels of divine revelation are applied. It's a rare society that doesn't claim to be the absolute authority on morality.

And yet others believe that God is the only factor in deciding human morality.

To debate this point is the reason why I created the thread.

[basics]

" Well duh.
It's after these moralities have formed that the labels of divine revelation are applied. It's a rare society that doesn't claim to be the absolute authority on morality. "

Himster,

Cart before the horse once more I fear. Since you are trying hard to put God at the latter edges of man, it falls to me to put what God says on the matter, as given to Moses to write down so that there would be ambiguity. The first society we read of is God, Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden where certain rules were applied and these were not applied by man or woman.

Since Eve was persuaded not to follow the rules thus bringing her and her partner under the curse that was part and parcel of these they fell from grace into what God in the word calls natural law. They now knew right from wrong and they now knew that God meant every word He ever spoke to them. From that time on they became a condemned people.

And more important than that was that they were governed by their own fallen natures to which all men are now bound through their offspring. Therefore, whatever they did from then on had within each one of them knowledge and experience of the expected morality God instituted into them and so guided them in setting up society, even though it was a fallen state.

Now you can argue all you want against this but it is in accordance with the above that all men have laws of some sort and not things dreamed up by man. As for absolute authority that is in God's mighty hand and as a reminder to all men, it is seen that all in fact do die.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

No it isn't. There are two types of morality, master morality and slave morality. You're discussing only slave morality. And slave morality is the product of someone imposing their own master morality (that they created themselves) upon others.

My own personal morality is completely independent of society and indeed is probably socailly unnacceptable to many. But on the occasions where I have dicussed it with people, they have eventually agreed with me. That's how morality is created. You're completely wrong if you think morality it imposed by the collective upon the individual. It's imposed by the strong-willed individual upon the collective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_morality for a quick summary of Nietzsche's views, although that article is very poor.

[mw2xboxplayer]

My own personal morality is completely independent of society and indeed is probably socailly unnacceptable to many. But on the occasions where I have dicussed it with people, they have eventually agreed with me. That's how morality is created. You're completely wrong if you think morality it imposed by the collective upon the individual. It's imposed by the strong-willed individual upon the collective.

So, your stating that an individual comes up with their own morality; then imposes their created morality upon others.

What would be the basis of the original creator/"master" morality? Their views inevitably would be influenced by the society/setting in which they were raised.

Such implemented "master" moral views would likely not stray completely away from the views of the collective. If the "master's" morals were radically different from that of the collective; the "master"'s morals would most likely be rejected by the community as the collective would be reluctant to change if any critical changes were presented. Especially if the "Master" morals changed moral code that viewed as immovable religious guides.(Such as the Ten Commandments.) If the moral code was changed slightly and gradually by many "Masters", the theory would be more realistic.

Since you used your own morality in your example, I would also like to know your own moral code.

You've got it the wrong way. Law didn't come out of nowhere. There was already a perception of right and wrong, and law was needed to enforce it.

If the concept of right and wrong already pre-existed, why do we need to define laws? Shouldn't every human have the morals already embedded in their psyche?

Obviously they had to share a basic morality, or any cooperation would have proven impossible.

Not necessarily, what if there were two political parties. One suggests abortion is wrong. The other suggests it is acceptable. However, they both agree that military spending to kill 'terrorists' is justifiable.

Both have different moralities, but political cooperation is still possible.

[The Dude]

A moral code may be defined by society, but whether or not it's effective is decided by practicality.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

So, your stating that an individual comes up with their own morality; then imposes their created morality upon others.

What would be the basis of the original creator/"master" morality? Their views inevitably would be influenced by the society/setting in which they were raised.

Such implemented "master" moral views would likely not stray completely away from the views of the collective. If the "master's" morals were radically different from that of the collective; the "master"'s morals would most likely be rejected by the community as the collective would be reluctant to change if any critical changes were presented. Especially if the "Master" morals changed moral code that viewed as immovable religious guides.(Such as the Ten Commandments.) If the moral code was changed slightly and gradually by many "Masters", the theory would be more realistic.

Since you used your own morality in your example, I would also like to know your own moral code.

Well the fundamental driving force in all human actions it the will to power - the desire to see our wishes fulfilled.

So it makes sense that a strong willed indivudal (a "master" in this context), who wants to live a good life and see his desires fulfilled, would have a firm personal morality that allows him to do that. This morality would basically say he should do whatever he likes, and value his courage, strength and open mindedness that allows him to achieve this by influencing otehrs and the world around him. Some would say it is no morality, but it is, in fact, a great morality.

Slave morality is the opposite of this. Since a master is strong and fulfills his desires at the expense of others fulfilling theirs, they create a morality that portrays the master's morality as absolutely evil and psycopathic, so they have more of a chance of succeeding. If they were sensible they would become strong, but for whatever reason they are insecure, naive or unwilling.

I'll give an example. Lets say 64 people are in a boxing tournament, and the guy who wins did so because he was strong willed and could make himself spend longer working out and training than anyone else. Have you heard the mantra "you can only try your best?" In this example of a society that is a slave morality, convincing people just try as hard as they feel like, and causing them to lose. Not only does this give weak people a better chance at winning, it also makes them feel better about losing - they did "their best", when a strong person would ask themselves why they failed, and try to improve on that. Someone who really wanted to win wouldn't listen to this nonsense, they'd do whatever it takes to win. They have a master morality. Someone who think everyone should "try their best" (not nearly their full potential) is an example someone with a slave morality.

If the concept of right and wrong already pre-existed, why do we need to define laws? Shouldn't every human have the morals already embedded in their psyche?

The trouble is there is no "right" and "wrong", only desires and whether or not one will fulfill them. All human beings naturally have very similar desires, which is why universally acceptable frameworks for exercising the will to power are possible.

[mw2xboxplayer]

Well the fundamental driving force in all human actions it the will to power - the desire to see our wishes fulfilled.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So it makes sense that a strong willed indivudal (a "master" in this context), who wants to live a good life and see his desires fulfilled, would have a firm personal morality that allows him to do that. This morality would basically say he should do whatever he likes, and value his courage, strength and open mindedness that allows him to achieve this by influencing otehrs and the world around him. Some would say it is no morality, but it is, in fact, a great morality.

Slave morality is the opposite of this. Since a master is strong and fulfills his desires at the expense of others fulfilling theirs, they create a morality that portrays the master's morality as absolutely evil and psycopathic, so they have more of a chance of succeeding. If they were sensible they would become strong, but for whatever reason they are insecure, naive or unwilling.

I'll give an example. Lets say 64 people are in a boxing tournament, and the guy who wins did so because he was strong willed and could make himself spend longer working out and training than anyone else. Have you heard the mantra "you can only try your best?" In this example of a society that is a slave morality, convincing people just try as hard as they feel like, and causing them to lose. Not only does this give weak people a better chance at winning, it also makes them feel better about losing - they did "their best", when a strong person would ask themselves why they failed, and try to improve on that. Someone who really wanted to win wouldn't listen to this nonsense, they'd do whatever it takes to win. They have a master morality. Someone who think everyone should "try their best" (not nearly their full potential) is an example someone with a slave morality.

I'm in the same situation as chriscase. I have not read any of Nietzche's essays, and would prefer to refrain from coming to any conclusion about his position without reading his argument for myself.

The trouble is there is no "right" and "wrong", only desires and whether or not one will fulfill them. All human beings naturally have very similar desires, which is why universally acceptable frameworks for exercising the will to power are possible.

I assume that you propose that morality does not exist, but is only a reflection of our natural wants and desires. Correct?

Perhaps morality is not a natural occurrence within humans, but a social construct.
If that is the case, consider this: a person has a moral obligation that allows him to kill anyone, as long as they are atheists. Otherwise, the killing is considered immoral and frown upon by society.

The first part can be deduced to play into his desire to kill, but what about the second part of his "obligation"? If morality (not a "natural" phenomena but an artificial social construction) does not exist, why would his actions be considered immoral?

[Cúchulainn]

I assume that you propose that morality does not exist, but is only a reflection of our natural wants and desires. Correct?

Perhaps morality is not a natural occurrence within humans, but a social construct.
If that is the case, consider this: a person has a moral obligation that allows him to kill anyone, as long as they are atheists. Otherwise, the killing is considered immoral and frown upon by society.

The first part can be deduced to play into his desire to kill, but what about the second part of his "obligation"? If morality (not a "natural" phenomena but an artificial social construction) does not exist, why would his actions be considered immoral?

If I may.

If you are referring to an obligation as a desire, an execution of ones will. Therefore to not act on it would make one a "slave".

There would be nothing immoral about acting on this desire, but something very impractical. They may fight back.

Nietzsche isn't a dogma, one decides for themselves what values they wish to possess. It is not the Masters duty to impose their will, other Masters would or may not agree yet slaves cannot comprehend such individuality.

[rrgg]

Morality basically comes down to the concept of 'for the tribe' (good) vs 'against the tribe' (evil).

It is defined by two things
1. Who you consider part of your tribe (can vary from the whole human race to no one or just a couple of close friends).
2. Which traditions help or hurt their tribe (is jaywalking helpful or hurtful)
Generally when you have a criminal it means either he doesn't consider the crime to be a bad thing or he doesn't consider the victim to be part of his tribe.

[Enemy of the State]

You've got it the wrong way. Law didn't come out of nowhere. There was already a perception of right and wrong, and law was needed to enforce it. Morality is a product of evolution. What drove those people to form a society in the first place? Obviously they had to share a basic morality, or any cooperation would have proven impossible.

[Jack04]

Morality is an individual consequence of your natural intuitions and your experiences. Laws are then developed and defined based on the more widely accepted of those morals. What is considered "morally acceptable" varies from individual to individual (a particularly evocative example being the death penalty), but as society evolves, certain experiences will become more (or less) common, increasing the amount of overlap in individuals' morals. I'd say certain morals are a consequence of society's discussion (slavery, perhaps) whilst others exist irrespective of social background (such as murder). It's nowhere near as clear cut as being "defined by society" though.

[mw2xboxplayer]

What is considered "morally acceptable" varies from individual to individual (a particularly evocative example being the death penalty)but as society evolves, certain experiences will become more (or less) common, increasing the amount of overlap in individuals' morals. I'd say certain morals are a consequence of society's discussion (slavery, perhaps)

I agree, morality can vary slightly from person to person. It is what allows society's morals to change over time. As the collective's/society's views change over time through debate and discussion, the majority's will decide what is socially acceptable (morality). The acceptable behavior is solidified as laws.

Further developing my point:
A society's views/culture will be imprinted on a new generation within that society. Then as the new generation of people mature; they will change their moral views. However, the majority of morals will usually conform with society's laws. Thus, society's morality will have effectively defined the majority's morality.

[Hobbes]

You've got it the wrong way. Law didn't come out of nowhere. There was already a perception of right and wrong, and law was needed to enforce it. Morality is a product of evolution. What drove those people to form a society in the first place? Obviously they had to share a basic morality, or any cooperation would have proven impossible.

I can accept this. But as societies bacame more complex, they have managed to shape morality, too. In fact societies need morality in order to function, thus things beneficial for the society become moral, and vice versa.

[chriscase]

Hmm. Not sure I buy the whole "master-slave" model there, irelandeb. Sounds rather parochial to me.

Morality is simply an idealization of a code of conduct. Cultural absolutism tells moralists in a given cultural context that their conception of morality is the only one. Familiarity with multiple cultures allows a person to make some further abstractions.

The ability to make abstractions is obviously useful in general. In this case, it's easy to see that an individual's ability to envision a better (or even "ideal") code of conduct, independent of the culture's contemporaneous values, enables the society as a whole to adjust its codes of conduct.

There are many influences within a given culture: family, clan, society, cult or religion. Many of these may have overlapping or even conflicting codes of conduct. The combination of these is probably complex enough to give an appearance of a truly individual code, whether such a thing really exists or not.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Hmm. Not sure I buy the whole "master-slave" model there, irelandeb. Sounds rather parochial to me.

If it does it's because i've faield to explain it clearly enough, I'm sorry it's very hard to explain such an abstract concept that took Nietzsche an entire book to develop in a single post. If you did understand it you'd see how obviously it describes all morality.

It's simply descriptive.

[chriscase]

If it does it's because i've faield to explain it clearly enough, I'm sorry it's very hard to explain such an abstract concept that took Nietzsche an entire book to develop in a single post. If you did understand it you'd see how obviously it describes all morality.

It's simply descriptive.

Ok. I'll grant I haven't read any of Nietzche's essays on morality.

[Justice and Mercy]

Nonsense. Like mathematics, a code of morality must be derived from the facts of reality by reason and reason alone.

"Society" is not inherently right or wrong, because "society" is just a large group of men.

Ethics isn't a vote.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Morality is the product of society which is in itself a product of subjective views interconnecting and materializing that interconnection into an inter-subjective world.

Then comes the material ''objectivization'' of said intersubjective world, in the form of laws, dressing codes, roles, taboos and crimes.

I mean, it's not that hard to understand, morality is and will always be a product of dialectics between individuals/groups over the course of history, only fanatic lovers of human essentialism with a deep hatred for anything historicist will defend an ''a priori'' form of trascendental morality